Paladino calls gays 'dysfunctional'

Associated Press ^ | REUVEN FENTON and JEREMY OLSHAN

[Free ThinkerNY]

Carl Paladino says it’s not okay to be gay.

"There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual," the Republican gubernatorial candidate told a small Hasidic group at K’hal Adas Kasho synagogue in Williamsburg today.

"That's not how god created us, and that's not the example that we should be showing our children."

Paladino, who has made his opposition to the gay marriage and "the homosexual agenda" clear, went much further yesterday, to say children "would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family" than being gay."

"And I don't want them to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option," he said. "It isn't."

The speech came just days after the suicide of a gay Rutgers student and an anti-gay gang attack in the Bronx.

His Democratic opponent, Andrew Cuomo, blasted the remarks as "stunning homophobia and a glaring disregard for basic equality."

A campaign spokesman said "These comments along with other views he has espoused make it clear that he is way out of the mainstream a

[LomanBill]

>>deliverance in the blood of the Lamb was His act of love

 

So the answer is NO - human "love" would NOT have prevented the angel of death from doing His business.

"Love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your might"

Is an unrepentant adulterer, or an unrepentant homosexual manifesting that "love"? NO.    The commandment to love does not unexist the other commandments; and pretending otherwise - as elements of the ELCA that condone homosexuality do - is a LIE.

 

 

A pig is still a pig regardless of the whitewash it's painted with; and sin is still sin regardless of the human "love" that individuals like you pretend can unexist it.

 

The blood and grace of Christ ALONE manifests forgiveness for human failure in sin;  and that forgiveness of sin is not permission to sin.

[LomanBill]

>>Oh, and you're seriously quoting Thomas Jefferson,

 

Absolutely. 

John 14:6

 

6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
NIV

IF that is true, then shouldn't it be self-evident to men for whom  "ALMIGHTY GOD HATH CREATED THE MIND FREE" ?

 

Jefferson wasn't a religionist thug who tried to coerce others into parroting his faith by wearing rabbinical plumage.   He encouraged others to seek and observe self-evident Truth for themselves.

 

Thanks to the ideals of his Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, codified in the 1st Amendment, religionist thugs and buggs don't get to condemn others to death for refusing to buy the manure being peddled on the temple steps.

 

"I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD ETERNAL HOSTILITY TO EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MAN"
--Thomas Jefferson

[xzins]

Jefferson wasn't a religionist thug who tried to coerce others into parroting his faith by wearing rabbinical plumage. He encouraged others to seek and observe self-evident Truth for themselves.

I don't suppose you attend Westboro, do you? I've always imagined that place is something like the twilight zone. Which I believe is where this conversation is. Dr. Wayne Oates wrote some really relevant books about this kind of thing.

But, you keep mentioning ELCA, so I imagine you are either present or former ELCA.

[P-Marlowe]

Yawn. That’s all the you’ve got to contribute?

Another mistake. You seem to have made a habit of that.

[MHGinTN]

If you look more carefully at Jefferson’s reason for excising the miracles, you will find that he told a friend in aletter that he did it to help convert the Indians since he thought the miracles would be a stumbling block with them when they were delivered the Gospel of the Grace of God in Christ.

[LomanBill]

>>Has anyone on this thread made that argument?

 

That "argument" is the logical product of perverting forgiveness into license that has infected elements of the ELCA and other denominations that condone homosexuality.

 

The impotent refusal of individuals such as yourselves - P-Marlowe, xzins and Buggman - to differentiate that Sabbatean doctrine of permission, manifested via a facade of "love", from the True Christian doctrine of forgiveness, manifested via grace and repentance, is symptomatic of the underlying disease that has afflicted human nature since the first man broke the first law.

 

"Go ahead, eat it - it's all good as long as you pretend it's "love""

 

 

 

 

 

[LomanBill]

>>I imagine

You evidently "imagine" lots of things.  None of them, however, conjure a truth out of false "logic".

Nope. I am not now, nor have I ever been, ELCA - or a Westborian.  FAIL.

Now, about your "logic" - care to differentiate it from Crowley's and the ELCA's, as I've asked you to do repeatedly, or are you just content to continue wallowing yourself in the ad hominem mud?

Crowley talked about "love" too - what makes his notion of it different from Paul's?

 

[LomanBill]

Yawn again @ P-Marlowe

 

You're rather disappointing; given that you have, thus far, displayed no evidence at all of the "wit" xzins was allegedly hoping for when it conjured you.

 

If you've anything of substance to add then stop acting like a boring / rude religo-gangsta wearing baggy pants in the peanut gallery and spit it out.

 

Otherwise...

 

.....Pffffffft!

 

 

 

[Buggman]

Riiiight . . . because the indians had no belief in the supernatural. That doesn’t even make sense on the surface of it.

[Buggman]

Gentleman, I do believe that it's time to stop feeding the troll. He's a voracious beast, and nothing will satisfy him. Let him wander off back under his bridge and wait for the Billy Goats Gruff if he's still hungry.

Shalom.

[xzins]

time to stop feeding the troll

I agree. I also think it's beyond that. I think lb has problems.

[LomanBill]

>>I think lb has problems.

 

See, there you go "imagining" things again.

 

Likewise, you've demonstrated, again, that you prefer to wallow in ad hominem instead of answering this simple question:

 

Crowley talked about "love" too - what makes his notion of it different from Paul's?

[xzins]

Your question has been answered many times above. You just refuse to see it. Go back, read the old posts, and return with a responsible answer, and you might get some discussion again.

Until then, I think you’re incapable of it.

[trisham]

He’s right. Good for him.

[LomanBill]

"Run Away, Run Away!"
---Buggman

[LomanBill]

>>Your question has been answered many times above.

Maybe you should try building a large wooden Rhinocerous?

[Buggman]

Actually, you remind me more of the Black Knight threatening to bite my kneecaps off.

[trisham]

No one is “gay”. Are you referring to homosexuals?

[LomanBill]

Yawn.  Silly persons such as yourselves, whose ability to differentiate between Aliester Crowley's "love" and Romans 13:10 is limited to "well uhh, Paul wrote Romans 13:10" don't have kneecaps or logical legs put them on.

Now waddle away as you promised, stumpy, or I shall taunt you again.

 

[P-Marlowe]

I agree. I also think it's beyond that. I think lb has problems.

This thread was a classic study in straw man argument.

LB kept putting words in your mouth and then arguing with his own words rather than even looking to see what you were saying. That is why when I came on this thread I just couldn't figure out what you guys were arguing about. YOU weren't arguing about anything. LB was just arguing with himself while at the same time calling you a Satanist for claiming to say what you quite obviously never said or even hinted at.

Maybe LB should set up another account with another Freeper name and then he can argue with himself all day long.