things we can agree are right/wrong no matter our religions/beliefs what can we agree on?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

That's actually another hypothetical I have thought about.

 

So you are told to rape or they kill many, and the woman also realising that the act will save many lives consents, though not freely - is it still rape? This is also bearing in mind the person doing the raping wouldn't want to - they recognise it as wrong, but are weighing up the two moral evils and judging the violation of one person is less evil than allowing many to be killed.

 

 

And this is why I answer no to the question - is rape wrong in ANY circumstances. No, in some situations it may be the right thing to do. (Note @ag_NO_stic this in no way implies that either party thinks that rape is acceptable - we are considering the wrongness in context of the situation which is why I answer no.)

 

I'd just hope that no one ever has to make such a choice - its a highly unlikely scenario, but there others that happen every day that show that not everything can be tied down to an absolute right or wrong.

It's not as unlikely as you might think.  A lot of scenarios similar to this happened in both Bosnia and Kosovo during the 1990s.  Christians from Serbia attempted to rid their land of the Muslim hordes and horror and atrocity ensued.  Of course, our resident apologists would tell us to believe that they weren't "real" Christians; but I've also heard one or two of said apologists calling for Muslim blood over the years on this very website.

 

Perhaps, Joe's answer concerning killing children is what makes him "unique" among other Christians who say they'd only do it if God gave them a good reason... Like the ones in Serbia.

[Joefizz]

42 minutes ago, ficino said:

What buffetphan asked was even simpler: would Joefizz stone his own children if he believed God told him to do so? The 'compelling reason' part comes from Joe's addition. Joe was creating stipulations that would limit the range of his obedience to God.

 

God's command is reason enough for Joe, if Joe is faithful. Though He slay me, and though He has me slay my children, yet will I trust Him, is the message we get from Job and Abraham.

 

It's not hard to think that people would go ahead and stone other people's children if they believed God told them to do it. After all, religionists have in fact done that, and felt justified.

 

This is why fundamentalist religion is a deathly virus. I hope Joe follows his own moral impulses as a human being and steps out of the cult. 

You are very astute,perhaps you can discern and explain my answer in a more simplistic manner,I really cannot answer a simple yes or no due to the gap between obedience,value of life, pleading and understanding of why stoning is ordered,because it would be as that if I simply said yes then I could be viewed as someone that is obedient to God yet uncaring to my child,if I simply said no then I would be viewed as unobedient and contradicting in my devotion to God but viewed as someone that wouldn't kill his child,either so called simple answer is a "Snare" that I am aware of,so I stand by the answer I gave on the subject of stoning my hypothetical children or not.

[♦ ficino ♦]

OK, cool. If the reason you got from God was not compelling, or if it did not seem compelling to you, you would disobey and not stone your children?

 

I don't think how you "would be viewed" is relevant, though, do you? Unless you mean "viewed by God."

[Joefizz]

15 minutes ago, ficino said:

OK, cool. If the reason you got from God was not compelling, or if it did not seem compelling to you, you would disobey and not stone your children?

 

I don't think how you "would be viewed" is relevant, though, do you? Unless you mean "viewed by God."

Well no I would not disobey I would seek an audience with God first about the matter and plead for the lives hanging in the balance, fasting and praying as well,and then if the answer was from God to still proceed then I would obey knowing that I had done all I could to spare my children's lives.

[Jeff]

1 minute ago, Joefizz said:

Well no I would not disobey I would seek an audience with God first about the matter and plead for the lives hanging in the balance, fasting and praying as well,and then if the answer was from God to still proceed then I would obey knowing that I had done all I could to spare my children's lives.

You are fucking sick. 

The take-away here is that Yes, you would stone your own children due to religion. 

[Travi]

So, you're okay with killing your kids as long as your god says its okay. As Jeff said, you are fucking sick and should be sent to an insane asylum immediately. 

 

Disgusting. 

[Joefizz]

33 minutes ago, ficino said:

OK, cool. If the reason you got from God was not compelling, or if it did not seem compelling to you, you would disobey and not stone your children?

 

I don't think how you "would be viewed" is relevant, though, do you? Unless you mean "viewed by God."

 

6 minutes ago, Jeff said:

You are fucking sick. 

The take-away here is that Yes, you would stone your own children due to religion. 

 

5 minutes ago, Travi said:

So, you're okay with killing your kids as long as your god says its okay. As Jeff said, you are fucking sick and should be sent to an insane asylum immediately. 

 

Disgusting. 

See what I meant by "would be viewed"Ficino?

[Jeff]

ARE viewed ^

[Jeff]

Any woman in your life, ever, should read this thread. 

[Travi]

I view you as a disgusting piece of scum who should not be walking free, unsupervised, and unmedicated. 

 

The mere fact you will entertain the idea is enough that you are a waste of oxygen and blight on this world. You, sir, are a sick fuck. I fear for your children now. 

[Joefizz]

6 minutes ago, Travi said:

So, you're okay with killing your kids as long as your god says its okay. As Jeff said, you are fucking sick and should be sent to an insane asylum immediately. 

 

Disgusting. 

Define "okay with" I never said I was "okay with this hypothetical situation outcome" but it stands to reason that if I didn't obey God after doing all I could to seek him to change his mind about my hypothetical children being stoned by me then God would carry out the stoning himself with or without me.

[Jeff]

Joe. let god do it then.

I hope that upon reflection, you realize the gravity of your comments and why you should consider that your beliefs may be badly wrong and misguided. 

Try taking a year off from religion. 

At the least you should show this thread to people who love you, and get some wise counsel from them. Hopefully they are not as confused about right, wrong, and reality as you seem to be right now. 

I dont hate you. And im not your enemy. 

But you really are way out in the deep end right now. 

[Joefizz]

38 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Joe. let god do it then.

I hope that upon reflection, you realize the gravity of your comments and why you should consider that your beliefs may be badly wrong and misguided. 

Try taking a year off from religion. 

At the least you should show this thread to people who love you, and get some wise counsel from them. Hopefully they are not as confused about right, wrong, and reality as you seem to be right now. 

I dont hate you. And im not your enemy. 

But you really are way out in the deep end right now. 

Exactly why I was explaining to Ficino of that this sort of topic is not a simple yes or no question to answer because anytime someone's life hangs in the balance,especially for someone who is serving God or a form of deity,because if I had no religion or God to obey then the matter would be simpler in answering if I would do this or that in a situation,but yet it still would not be even then a simple yes or no answer of would you kill someone for any reason especially concerning children,because in my personal view if a person does not get torn up about even thinking of what if they had to kill a child especially their own child then they don't care for children,a prime example of this would be the "Vietnam war" I've heard it to be perhaps the saddest war because "children" were used as soldiers,having an arsenal of weaponry at their disposal,and on the battlefield grown adults having to face killing children despite clearly being against doing so,tearing up staring down the barrel of a gun looking at a child and torn because sure they looked somewhat like soldiers but they were still children,to say it's "Simple" to answer on killing children is to not understand love or sadness,I "Never" would want a situation in any form of me having to kill any child especially my own,and of course I don't see this hypothetical stuff ever happening to me,but if it did I would "Never" view such a circumstance as "Simple",and I would consider what to do probably to the point that my own life would start dwindling from such an unfortunate situation,I have given my honest answers on this subject of stoning children or not,but let me be abundantly clear,I would "Never" Seek nor Want such a heart wrenching circumstance of inevitable death for any child let alone my own through any action of my own,I can hardly bring myself to fight someone physically and have never killed anyone and certainly never want to be in a life or death situation that requires my decision or action.

 

[ag_NO_stic]

6 hours ago, Joefizz said:

Well I didn't say ignore them,what I mean to say is that the old law could not be followed entirely by "all people"and with Jesus dieing for "Everyone's sin" as well as fulfilling the old law,there is still incentive that one shouldn't go against those commandments of the old law,but Jesus provided "Everyone" with a new way to abide by the old law as well as the statutes Jesus gave in the new testament, instead of everyone trying so desperately to abide by the old law,Matthew 22 verses 36-40 he was asked by a lawyer "which  is the greatest commandment"?

he replied"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,and with all thy soul,and with all thy mind."

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it,Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets".

Meaning if one can abide by these two commandments then they abide by "All" the commandments and statutes in both the old and new testament.

Which is why I imagine so many people today feed people the line that loving Jesus is how to be saved, they confuse salvation with upholding God's commandments,and also why Christianity has become so "popular" because it does sound rather easy right?

Love God with all your being,and love your neighbors as yourself,certainly sounds less tough by comparison to many other religions,so lots of people switch over even without changing their ways,like my uncle who is proudly quote gay and is always posting about Jesus being his saviour on facebook,as much as that is strange to me that sort of lifestyle is between him and God and I'm not about to forbid him from doing what he believes to be right,after all he shares posts in the name of Jesus so it can only help Jesus.

 

I take issue with all this. You are misunderstanding Jesus here in several different ways, and you're misunderstanding my point entirely. Allow me to clarify.

 

1) You need to understand that in the particular passage you gave, this "expert in the law" (lowercase "l") is testing Jesus in order to catch him blaspheming against Jewish law (lower case "l") and Jesus effectively sidestepped him with a vague non-answer type of response. This does not mean you can cherry-pick a verse out of context and say that the entire OT is no longer applicable to you. Capital "L" Law refers specifically to Mosaic law or the first 5 books of the Bible and the Prophets (this is more complicated but refers books like Isaiah through Malachi) refers to  prophetic scriptures. It does not nullify the OT at all.  Please see point #3.

 

2) It's important to look into the definition of "neighbor" as Jesus is using it. Why? Because Jesus' answer about "the two greatest commandments" including being kind to your neighbor does not at ALL excuse the types of laws about rape or slavery that I am referring to. It also does not excuse your god's attitudes towards these people.

 

If we look at the story of the good samaritan, where Jesus gives as a response to Luke who is asking for a definition of"neighbor," we can see a distinction between three people. We can see from this passage that not only is Jesus very vague about what a neighbor is, but he asks Luke to PICK which one of the three guys was the "neighbor". I am mentioning this, because....contextually....being kind to your neighbor does not mean everyone.  He is preaching to Jews in the verse you gave about the law and the prophets and being kind to your neighbor as what the "Law and Prophets" hang on, he was not issuing a new commandment or nullifying the OT; he was clarifying that “to others what you would have them do to you” or "loving your neighbor as yourself" is summing up what the Old Testament required of god's people. He is saying that the "Law and Prophets" or Mosaic Law and books of prophetic Scripture (with all those very particular rules for people) sum up to "don't do be a dick to Jerry here. I shouldn't have to spell this out." I really hope this is making sense. He's referring to Mosaic ceremonial law between Jews, not the god's behavior and temperament in the OT. (Luke 10:25-37) Again, Jesus saw gentiles as dogs and his ministry was only to the Jews. The disciples continued this ministry, only to Jews, until Paul came along and effed everything up. All of this is to address my point that your passage does not address my reference to god's attitude toward women, slaves, and war "plunder." (Matthew 15:21-28)

 

3) You are trying to assert that the Old Testament has been fulfilled and is now no longer applicable. The problem is that the bible is not clear on this and Christians like to assume that the law has been fulfilled because of things Pauls says taken out of context sometimes. Jesus clearly states 

 

Matthew 5:17-20: “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. 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. 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, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (I'm assuming you still believe heaven and earth are here...)

 

Luke 24:44: He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” (Please notice, he is already resurrected and he does NOT say everything has been fulfilled, it says it must be.) 

 

4) Even IF the Law is no longer applicable to you, there is no way to explain your god's sudden change. The bible is clear on this, god does not change. So if rape, slavery, and plundering is acceptable practice in the OT, it's not like god can suddenly find it repulsive. If that were true, then he can change his own standard and so gay people should be fine now. So....God telling people to stone their rebellious children would not suddenly be appalling to him now.

 

Numbers 23:19- God is not human, that he should lie,  not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

 

Hebrews 13:8- Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

 

James 1:17- Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

 

1 Samuel 15:29 - “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.”

 

Also, why would you think that it is acceptable for god to need a sacrifice to be sated? If Jesus is God, then it's not a sacrifice if you are.....giving something to yourself? Furthermore, he was back 3 days later, so how is that even a "sacrifice?" What, he gave up his weekend? Because god needs pure, "sinless" blood to pay for a standard he's capable of changing? .....Really? I won't even get into how most of what is quoted in the Bible as Jesus is probably not even remotely accurate and is full of dying disciple's propaganda. Sorry for the long post, but try again with your answers. As soon as you understand that the Bible is made up of a bunch of different people's opinions slapped together and trying to make sense of the world, as soon as you see that it's one thing to "have faith" and another to have "blind faith" that actively negates scientific discovery....as soon as you think about how the bible got here and how Christianity spread.....you can't continue to believe these things. I tell you this as a heart-broken Christian who was devastated to learn these things.

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

1 hour ago, Joefizz said:

 

 

See what I meant by "would be viewed"Ficino?

I think you are right that your confessional/theological commitment entails stoning your children if that is God's command and you understand it as His command.

 

I would have said the same years ago. 

 

I was president of our local InterVarsity group. Occasionally non-students would come to the meetings. There were two guys who lived in the neighborhood. I didn't think much about it, but some other students came one day and told me that they were sure these two guys were a gay couple and that they (the students) felt uncomfortable that these guys were coming to our Christian meetings while disobeying God's commands. I considered it my role to act as though I was an elder in this group. So I went to these guys' little furnished room. The younger one was there, and when he sort of admitted that they might express affection for each other, I quoted anti-gay scriptures and told him that they needed to repent. I don't remember whether I said they couldn't come to the meetings; I think he slammed the door, starting to cry, before I got that far. They never came back, but I'd see them around. Some years later, this fellow passed me in the street, and he came up and told me angrily of how much distress my words had caused him, how he became very depressed and had psychological problems ...

 

I had done what I understood to be God's command. I had felt bad at the time that this guy was upset, but I had felt worse thinking about how hell awaited the two of them, and what God would do if I disobeyed and valued humanistic compassion over His word.

 

Now I reject what I did, though I can't undo it. I have no idea what happened to the younger one. I think the older one was already sick and passed away long ago.

 

Religion has the capacity, like other totalitarian systems, of giving otherwise not bad people reasons to do evil things. The grand inquisitor has the capacity to do great harm out of a sense of duty and justice.

 

Christian apologists talk about how, without God, we have no morality... about how only objective morality counts as morality, and only God can ground objective morality. One of the ways to test moral systems is through thought experiments of the kind that buffetphan proposed. You've seen that you recoil at the consequences of your own system when they are brought out to extreme but logical conclusions. Even your insistence on wanting the reason why God would command you stone your children is misplaced on your system, for Christianity holds that God is Goodness Itself. What God commands is right by definition; what God wants is good by definition. "It is my divine will" is the answer that your system considers to be sufficient - whether or not God adds any further information.

 

I urge you to think much more deeply about the system of thought that you've signed on for. We all see how conservative Christian leaders are reacting as the membership of churches generally declines. As Christianity sees its political power challenged, the Bible-thumpers and their sophisticated allies ramp up their demands that others obey their line. Times grow more critical. But contemporary politics aside, I urge you for your own sake, and that of people close to you, to let your inner moral impulses show you that the system you've bought into is a human construction. And it's one with potential to motivate people to great acts of evil - as it's done before. 

[ag_NO_stic]

1 hour ago, Joefizz said:

Well no I would not disobey I would seek an audience with God first about the matter and plead for the lives hanging in the balance, fasting and praying as well,and then if the answer was from God to still proceed then I would obey knowing that I had done all I could to spare my children's lives.

 

I'm interested to see how this "audience with god" bit goes. He doesn't like to show his face, according to Scripture, or.....himself at all, according to personal experience. We are talking hypothetically about god telling you to stone your child, since he never seems to just say shit he wants.

[ag_NO_stic]

1 hour ago, Joefizz said:

Define "okay with" I never said I was "okay with this hypothetical situation outcome" but it stands to reason that if I didn't obey God after doing all I could to seek him to change his mind about my hypothetical children being stoned by me then God would carry out the stoning himself with or without me.

 

Sorry, I'll try to stop posting. I have no interest in calling you, particularly, a sick fuck. I am disturbed by your mentality on this, but I implore you to consider why a moral god would ever ask you to stone your child or stone him/her directly. Why are you ok with this? Why do you worship a god who has demonstrated that he will do this exact scenario with Abraham? Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that you have a higher code of morality than your god, as described in the bible? You who does not rape women or view them as property, have slaves that you beat within an inch of your life, commit genocide, sacrifice your child or force another person to do so, require that people worship you....? Point blank, is it a fear of hell?

 

 

[Jeff]

27 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

Exactly why I was explaining to Ficino of that this sort of topic is not a simple yes or no question to answer because anytime someone's life hangs in the balance,especially for someone who is serving God or a form of deity,because if I had no religion or God to obey then the matter would be simpler in answering if I would do this or that in a situation,but yet it still would not be even then a simple yes or no answer of would you kill someone for any reason especially concerning children,because in my personal view if a person does not get torn up about even thinking of what if they had to kill a child especially their own child then they don't care for children,a prime example of this would be the "Vietnam war" I've heard it to be perhaps the saddest war because "children" were used as soldiers,having an arsenal of weaponry at their disposal,and on the battlefield grown adults having to face killing children despite clearly being against doing so,tearing up staring down the barrel of a gun looking at a child and torn because sure they looked somewhat like soldiers but they were still children,to say it's "Simple" to answer on killing children is to not understand love or sadness,I "Never" would want a situation in any form of me having to kill any child especially my own,and of course I don't see this hypothetical stuff ever happening to me,but if it did I would "Never" view such a circumstance as "Simple",and I would consider what to do probably to the point that my own life would start dwindling from such an unfortunate situation,I have given my honest answers on this subject of stoning children or not,but let me be abundantly clear,I would "Never" Seek nor Want such a heart wrenching circumstance of inevitable death for any child let alone my own through any action of my own,I can hardly bring myself to fight someone physically and have never killed anyone and certainly never want to be in a life or death situation that requires my decision or action.

 

No Joe, it IS a simple yes or no. 

"No" is the correct answer always if you think a god is telling you to kill for it!

-

Anything else is Isis beheading infidels; religion publicly stoning adulterers; religion hanging gays; religion burning witches; and exactly what you are saying you are willing to do if you are convinced its gods will... killing due to gods will. 

[Joefizz]

4 minutes ago, ficino said:

I think you are right that your confessional/theological commitment entails stoning your children if that is God's command and you understand it as His command.

 

I would have said the same years ago. 

 

I was president of our local InterVarsity group. Occasionally non-students would come to the meetings. There were two guys who lived in the neighborhood. I didn't think much about it, but some other students came one day and told me that they were sure these two guys were a gay couple and that they (the students) felt uncomfortable that these guys were coming to our Christian meetings while disobeying God's commands. I considered it my role to act as though I was an elder in this group. So I went to these guys' little furnished room. The younger one was there, and when he sort of admitted that they might express affection for each other, I quoted anti-gay scriptures and told him that they needed to repent. I don't remember whether I said they couldn't come to the meetings; I think he slammed the door, starting to cry, before I got that far. They never came back, but I'd see them around. Some years later, this fellow passed me in the street, and he came up and told me angrily of how much distress my words had caused him, how he became very depressed and had psychological problems ...

 

I had done what I understood to be God's command. I felt bad at the time that this guy was upset, but I felt worse thinking about how hell awaited the two of them, and what God would do if I disobeyed and valued humanistic compassion over His word.

 

Now I reject what I did, though I can't undo it. I have no idea what happened to the younger one. I think the older one was already sick and passed away long ago.

 

Religion has the capacity, like other totalitarian systems, of giving otherwise not bad people reasons to do evil things. The grand inquisitor has the capacity to do great harm out of a sense of duty and justice.

 

Christian apologists talk about how, without God, we have no morality... about how only objective morality counts as morality, and only God can ground objective morality. One of the ways to test moral systems is through thought experiments of the kind that buffetphan proposed. You've seen that you recoil at the consequences of your own system when they are brought out to extreme but logical conclusions. Even your insistence on wanting the reason why God would command you stone your children is misplaced on your system, for Christianity holds that God is Goodness Itself. What God commands is right by definition; what God wants is good by definition. "It is my divine will" is the answer that your system considers to be sufficient - whether or not God adds any further information.

 

I urge you to think much more deeply about the system of thought that you've signed on for. We all see how conservative Christian leaders are reacting as the membership of churches generally declines. As Christianity sees its political power challenged, the Bible-thumpers and their sophisticated allies ramp up their demands that others obey their line. Times grow more critical. But contemporary politics aside, I urge you for your own sake, and that of people close to you, to let your inner moral impulses show you that the system you've bought into is a human construction. And it's one with potential to motivate people to great acts of evil - as it's done before. 

Yeah anything can be used for evil,scriptures even,alot of things can be more good when you think on appropriate ways to handle things like in what you shared,quote gay people is a tense subject for Christians such as myself because on one hand you don't want to hurt their feelings but you feel you should mention how biblically it's wrong,I've found it's better to not rail on them with scripture but rather if they "want" to learn of if their chosen lifestyle is wrong then you speak on scripture and explain "calmly" and "politely" about why it is wrong otherwise you can end up spiralling them into depression or inspire more wrong behavior,as you said happened in your circumstance,mutual respect has it's place when discussing any subject.

[ag_NO_stic]

1 minute ago, Joefizz said:

Yeah anything can be used for evil,scriptures even,alot of things can be more good when you think on appropriate ways to handle things like in what you shared,quote gay people is a tense subject for Christians such as myself because on one hand you don't want to hurt their feelings but you feel you should mention how biblically it's wrong,I've found it's better to not rail on them with scripture but rather if they "want" to learn of if their chosen lifestyle is wrong then you speak on scripture and explain "calmly" and "politely" about why it is wrong otherwise you can end up spiralling them into depression or inspire more wrong behavior,as you said happened in your circumstance,mutual respect has it's place when discussing any subject.

 

There is no way to calmly and politely say, "God hates what you're doing and if you don't repent, you will burn in hell."

[buffettphan]

2 hours ago, Joefizz said:

Well no I would not disobey I would seek an audience with God first about the matter and plead for the lives hanging in the balance, fasting and praying as well,and then if the answer was from God to still proceed then I would obey knowing that I had done all I could to spare my children's lives.

 

Niiiiiice.  You would obey imaginary voices in your head and kill a real live human being - your very own child!   Having children made me realize that I was a better, more loving parent than "god" because I would never murder my children nor put them in a fiery hell for all eternity simply for disobeying or rejecting me.   You need to grow up JoeFizz.   If you can't or don't want to grow up or seek psychiatric help, then please PLEASE never have children.  There are already too many children abused in the name of their parents' god.   

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, Joefizz said:

Well no I would not disobey I would seek an audience with God first about the matter and plead for the lives hanging in the balance, fasting and praying as well,and then if the answer was from God to still proceed then I would obey knowing that I had done all I could to spare my children's lives.

Job also sought an audience with god.  god showed up in a hurricane and told Job he had no right to question god or his "will".  Do you think you are more special to god than Job, who was called "righteous" by god himself?  If so, you may add pride and arrogance to the litany of sins of which you are already guilty.

[♦ ficino ♦]

7 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

There is no way to calmly and politely say, "God hates what you're doing and if you don't repent, you will burn in hell."

I was going to say almost just this, too, Joe. There is no way to calmly and politely tell your children that God has commanded that you stone them to death and that you will obey His command - whatever the reason.

 

Responses like "yes, well it depends on X... it matters how you phrase Y ..." just obfuscate the issue. It's staring you plain in the face, Joe. Please step back and consider.

[Joefizz]

5 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

There is no way to calmly and politely say, "God hates what you're doing and if you don't repent, you will burn in hell."

Well there is always a way to explain something "calmly" and "politely",for example instead of focusing so much on the hell part,you could tell the individual "yes the gay lifestyle is wrong"and then explain why and leave it for them to deliberate on with a few scriptures concerning it to read if they want to concerning the quote gay lifestyle.

No need for shouting or forcing them to do something,why some don't do this as Christians is beyond me.

[nutrichuckles93]

So you would actually be able to say now, "Hey, guys. What's up? Yeah, I'd stone my children if god was adamant in telling me to." I hope somewhere in you that you realize how revolting that is.