Beware of Hollywood's New Obsession with the Bible..

[Silhouette]

"Suffice to say..."
"Mark my words..."
No evidence.
Trust you. You won't cum in my mouth.
You are merely displaying your paranoia and the frustration of losing the culture war.

No mystery which team you're batting for. No person of moral fiber, religious or not, would say the things you just said in the manner you said them. You just displayed your rainbow armband for all to see. I'll take your criticisms of the message here in that vain. No war has been lost. And the tenacity of those waking up to your degrading messages will surprise you. You're in for a shock and defeat on several battlefields my friend.

 

[thebrucebeat]

"Suffice to say..."
"Mark my words..."
No evidence.
Trust you. You won't cum in my mouth.
You are merely displaying your paranoia and the frustration of losing the culture war.

No mystery which team you're batting for. No person of moral fiber, religious or not, would say the things you just said in the manner you said them. You just displayed your rainbow armband for all to see. I'll take your criticisms of the message here in that vain. No war has been lost. And the tenacity of those waking up to your degrading messages will surprise you. You're in for a shock and defeat on several battlefields my friend.

Very much on the gay rights team.
Remarkable insight on your part.
How did you ferret out my secret?
You still provide no evidence of your great conspiracy.
Just your "ick" and your paranoia.

 

[Luissa]

Best OP ever!


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[daws101]

Church enrollment is DOWN. This is not a popular sentiment. Therefore the "money" doesn't justify the agenda.

Mark my words, there is an agenda..

what "agenda"?

It involves "sorcerers".

gay sorcerers

 

[Silhouette]

Best OP ever!


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Thanks!

 

[thebrucebeat]

You wouldn't want to provide a smidge of evidence for any of this, would you?
Are unsupported accusations supposed to constitute argument now?
Everyone from all sides is involved with massive competing conspiracies?

People involved in fighting back against the Gay Agenda's war on religion can do their homework and find the things I'm talking about. Suffice to say I'm not making it up and that the internet indeed is a very small world.

You have been given a head's up. That goes for all readers here. These religious movies are a concerted, purposeful and direct intended attack on the last vestiges of credibility the Bible or christianity is clinging to. They have nothing to do with making money and everything to do with strategy of promoting the gay agenda.

Mark my words. You know if you know nothing else, that the LGBT crowd has declared a "culture war" upon christianity and right now as I type this the two camps are squaring off in the courts. So, small wonder that anyone supporting the pro-traditional stance would be lured into a religious film showing and then fed messages therein that "christianity is silly really, right? Mere fiction.. Hogwash.. not believable"..

The felling of christianity for good in film will be more like a formality realy than an actual battle. So far down are the numbers of those with moral fiber and convictions. It will be like breathing on a feather.. The long progressive intent, engaged for decades now, has finally reached its end. The bullfight is over and the bull hardly noticed all those gaffs going in itself. Wobbly, the final sword blow is just a mere act of showmanship.

The funniest part of your post (and it was a close competition) is highlighted in red above. According to you, Christianity and the bible are clinging to the last vestiges of credibility.
So true!
LOL!

 

[Silhouette]

what "agenda"?

It involves "sorcerers".

gay sorcerers

Yes. Their guru who didn't want to be their guru but who they clung to anyway because that was "the groovy thing man" back in the day, told them flat out one day when they were stalking him that homosexuality was masturbatory and he didn't approve of it.

Rebuffed, their entire foundation crumbling, except the parts where they learned how to manipulate people's perceptions from their guru, these gay men and some of their questionable hetero cohorts launched on a defamation campaign to slam their former guru. They dedicated an edifice to this and continue to this very day to alternate between obsessing on his memory and slamming him into the ground.

The one that I mentioned who was involved with starting GLAAD was the most maligned of all. It's my personal opinion having interacted with him at length in his various sock puppets and a growing realization of what was going on, that he in great part spurred on this great gay agenda to show up his old guru. His ultimate goal being that of using the tools his master taught him to one-up his condemnation of homosexuality as masturbatory and unsavory.

There are stranger motivations that spur people on. But yes, a sorcerer. A gay sorcerer. But he in no way followed the path his guru was on. His guru taught that these disciplines rejected volunteers, were not a cult and did not cater to people's pre-existing agendas. That one of the main enemies of these disciplines was a thirst for power and a lust for vengeance. This gay sorcerer took a hard left at the "self-examination" intersection and has never looked back. His is a blind vendetta.

 

[Silhouette]

The funniest part of your post (and it was a close competition) is highlighted in red above. According to you, Christianity and the bible are clinging to the last vestiges of credibility.
So true!
LOL!

The difference between the two of us is that you are celebrating that while I am not.

And hence the warnings in the OP about this latest trend in Hollywood films. Thank you once again for letting the cat out of the bag.

I'm not concerned with your unexamined motivations for destroying the institution [christianity] that most directly threatens your statistically-likely unexamined childhood abuse and resulting compulsions sexually. The Bible and religion itself as any of the faithful who really apply themselves will discover, is but an edifice to a much deeper truth. And that truth is that humans need morality. They need structure and laws of decency in the way they treat and regard each other. And the truth is that any holy book anywhere has been touched by the hand of the devil. That is to say that scribes, councils and translators all were fallible men susceptible to the smooth influences of the one with the forked tongue.

So yes, in any holy book are little white lies that snowballed. And its those white lies that snowballed that become the reason men of religion fight each other tooth and nail today. If they simmered back down and opened up their minds, they would find that the underlying structure of morality is one of the greatest gifts the spirit has sent them. They would calm the rhetoric down and reject what their gut tells them is wrong. What they know is wrong.

The story of how Sodom was destroyed and all those who enabled it along with the damned aside... a man trying to copulate with another man's lower digestive tract, substituting the anus for an artificial vagina is wrong. The gut tells a person this. And so no Bible is necessary to interpret that it is completely against the natural design of the matrix that men find themselves in...

Yet when you find stories in the Bible that come with the profundity of the story of Sodom; where entire cities were reported to have been destroyed for a certain reason, and the price for any future repeat is eternity in the pit of fire, it is much less likely that this was a white lie that snowballed. More likely that any mention of being damned to hell for eternity is something you should pay attention to instead of the myriad of ancient venial sins visited and revisited where lesser punishments were prescribed. Most of these are in the Old Testament anyway. And hence the reason Christ came around. To clean up the old mess and freshen up the Bible a bit with a more contemporary theme. I think this is why a new Messiah is overdue. I just don't want that "messiah" to be the wrong one on the silver screen. Christianity has taken all the devilish redacting it can handle..

 

[Silhouette]

duplicate

 

[thebrucebeat]

The funniest part of your post (and it was a close competition) is highlighted in red above. According to you, Christianity and the bible are clinging to the last vestiges of credibility.
So true!
LOL!

The difference between the two of us is that you are celebrating that while I am not.

And hence the warnings in the OP about this latest trend in Hollywood films. Thank you once again for letting the cat out of the bag.

I'm not concerned with your unexamined motivations for destroying the institution [christianity] that most directly threatens your statistically-likely unexamined childhood abuse and resulting compulsions sexually. The Bible and religion itself as any of the faithful who really apply themselves will discover, is but an edifice to a much deeper truth. And that truth is that humans need morality. They need structure and laws of decency in the way they treat and regard each other. And the truth is that any holy book anywhere has been touched by the hand of the devil. That is to say that scribes, councils and translators all were fallible men susceptible to the smooth influences of the one with the forked tongue.

So yes, in any holy book are little white lies that snowballed. And its those white lies that snowballed that become the reason men of religion fight each other tooth and nail today. If they simmered back down and opened up their minds, they would find that the underlying structure of morality is one of the greatest gifts the spirit has sent them. They would calm the rhetoric down and reject what their gut tells them is wrong. What they know is wrong.

The story of how Sodom was destroyed and all those who enabled it along with the damned aside... a man trying to copulate with another man's lower digestive tract, substituting the anus for an artificial vagina is wrong. The gut tells a person this. And so no Bible is necessary to interpret that it is completely against the natural design of the matrix that men find themselves in...

Yet when you find stories in the Bible that come with the profundity of the story of Sodom; where entire cities were reported to have been destroyed for a certain reason, and the price for any future repeat is eternity in the pit of fire, it is much less likely that this was a white lie that snowballed. More likely that any mention of being damned to hell for eternity is something you should pay attention to instead of the myriad of ancient venial sins visited and revisited where lesser punishments were prescribed. Most of these are in the Old Testament anyway. And hence the reason Christ came around. To clean up the old mess and freshen up the Bible a bit with a more contemporary theme. I think this is why a new Messiah is overdue. I just don't want that "messiah" to be the wrong one on the silver screen. Christianity has taken all the devilish redacting it can handle..

Your quote said the credibility of the faith was crumbling.
We agree.
The Sodom story shows replacing gay rape with straight rape of minors as a positive good.
Is that your position?
Many theologians think the sin displayed was not welcoming the visitors as friends.
You just want to do the redacting.

 

[Silhouette]

[
Your quote said the credibility of the faith was crumbling.
We agree.
The Sodom story shows replacing gay rape with straight rape of minors as a positive good.
Is that your position?
Many theologians think the sin displayed was not welcoming the visitors as friends.
You just want to do the redacting.

Correction, the story shows a desperate man picking the lesser of two evils instead of holding out his daughters as "preferred" or "a positive good". The man was beseiged at his door, perverts pounding it down trying to get in to the chaste holy men and rape them instead as "the new fresh meat in town". In duress he offered his daughters. And fathers back then did not take this lightly. A man's daughter's virginity was equal to his status.

See? You've already twisted the tale and it hasn't even begun to be cast or scripted yet at Universal Studios.

What a person can take away from the tale of the gay men accosting Lot at Sodom is that in the eyes of God it is a lesser of two crimes to offer out your daughters to strange men than it is allow a homosexual rape fest to go on. BTW, don't you think that if Lot heard the men outside bashing his door down demanding access to the men inside to have sex with, that he knew his offer of his FEMALE daughters would be rejected anyway? I'm assuming he wasn't stupid. Those girls were as safe from the men outside as anyone could be.

 

[thebrucebeat]

[
Your quote said the credibility of the faith was crumbling.
We agree.
The Sodom story shows replacing gay rape with straight rape of minors as a positive good.
Is that your position?
Many theologians think the sin displayed was not welcoming the visitors as friends.
You just want to do the redacting.

Correction, the story shows a desperate man picking the lesser of two evils instead of holding out his daughters as "preferred" or "a positive good". The man was beseiged at his door, perverts pounding it down trying to get in to the chaste holy men and rape them instead as "the new fresh meat in town". In duress he offered his daughters. And fathers back then did not take this lightly. A man's daughter's virginity was equal to his status.

See? You've already twisted the tale and it hasn't even begun to be cast or scripted yet at Universal Studios.

No matter how you twist and turn, Lot chose the chastity of his female children over the abuse of his guests.
Last vestiges of credibility is right.

 

[Silhouette]

[
Your quote said the credibility of the faith was crumbling.
We agree.
The Sodom story shows replacing gay rape with straight rape of minors as a positive good.
Is that your position?
Many theologians think the sin displayed was not welcoming the visitors as friends.
You just want to do the redacting.

Correction, the story shows a desperate man picking the lesser of two evils instead of holding out his daughters as "preferred" or "a positive good". The man was beseiged at his door, perverts pounding it down trying to get in to the chaste holy men and rape them instead as "the new fresh meat in town". In duress he offered his daughters. And fathers back then did not take this lightly. A man's daughter's virginity was equal to his status.

See? You've already twisted the tale and it hasn't even begun to be cast or scripted yet at Universal Studios.

No matter how you twist and turn, Lot chose the chastity of his female children over the abuse of his guests.
Last vestiges of credibility is right.

Again, you celebrate the destruction of a moral foundation and I attempt to rebuild it. I think it's clear who is motivated by what. Say hi to your friends in Hollywood for me.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Correction, the story shows a desperate man picking the lesser of two evils instead of holding out his daughters as "preferred" or "a positive good". The man was beseiged at his door, perverts pounding it down trying to get in to the chaste holy men and rape them instead as "the new fresh meat in town". In duress he offered his daughters. And fathers back then did not take this lightly. A man's daughter's virginity was equal to his status.

See? You've already twisted the tale and it hasn't even begun to be cast or scripted yet at Universal Studios.

No matter how you twist and turn, Lot chose the chastity of his female children over the abuse of his guests.
Last vestiges of credibility is right.

Again, you celebrate the destruction of a moral foundation and I attempt to rebuild it. I think it's clear who is motivated by what. Say hi to your friends in Hollywood for me.

You aren't trying to rebuild anything.
You are trying to reinvent something to meet your own needs.
Would you do what Lot did?

 

[Silhouette]

No matter how you twist and turn, Lot chose the chastity of his female children over the abuse of his guests.
Last vestiges of credibility is right.

Again, you celebrate the destruction of a moral foundation and I attempt to rebuild it. I think it's clear who is motivated by what. Say hi to your friends in Hollywood for me.

You aren't trying to rebuild anything.
You are trying to reinvent something to meet your own needs.
Would you do what Lot did?

I stand by what I said

 

[thebrucebeat]

Again, you celebrate the destruction of a moral foundation and I attempt to rebuild it. I think it's clear who is motivated by what. Say hi to your friends in Hollywood for me.

You aren't trying to rebuild anything.
You are trying to reinvent something to meet your own needs.
Would you do what Lot did?

I stand by what I said

Would you do what Lot did?
Simple question.

 

[Silhouette]

You aren't trying to rebuild anything.
You are trying to reinvent something to meet your own needs.
Would you do what Lot did?

I stand by what I said

Would you do what Lot did?
Simple question.

Immaterial. Neither you nor I would know what to do in such a circumstance. The allegory's abstract core says "gay sex is worse than giving your virgin daughters up". That's the Bible's way of spelling out the core truth of the lesson. And yes, I probably would because as I said, my daughters would be safe as anything with gay predators wanting sex. Remember? His offer was like offering a lion some tofu in preference to a bloody wildabeast.

But we're getting off the topic of Hollywood setting out to batter the last vestiges of faith to forward the gay agenda. I haven't seen the Moses movie but I'll bet you dollars to donuts that there are subliminal or innuendo to homosexuality being OK in it. If not, that's sure to come in subsequent "biblical movies" being filmed probably right now as we debate this, right?

 

[thebrucebeat]

I stand by what I said

Would you do what Lot did?
Simple question.

Immaterial. Neither you nor I would know what to do in such a circumstance. The allegory's abstract core says "gay sex is worse than giving your virgin daughters up". That's the Bible's way of spelling out the core truth of the lesson. And yes, I probably would because as I said, my daughters would be safe as anything with gay predators wanting sex. Remember? His offer was like offering a lion some tofu in preference to a bloody wildabeast.

But we're getting off the topic of Hollywood setting out to batter the last vestiges of faith to forward the gay agenda. I haven't seen the Moses movie but I'll bet you dollars to donuts that there are subliminal or innuendo to homosexuality being OK in it. If not, that's sure to come in subsequent "biblical movies" being filmed probably right now as we debate this, right?

Most actual biblical scholars would not come to the lesson conclusion you have from that story in the bible. You should read up on it. You are far off base, even from conservative evangelical scholars. Train wreck.
Do your daughters know you would be willing to risk them on your theological assumption?
I hope for your sake they don't. For their sake, I hope they do, and see their father for the loon he really is and run while they can still protect themselves.
So now your Hollywood argument is "I haven't seen the movie, but I'll bet there is gay stuff in it. And if not, well, you just wait and see! It's coming, even if I'm wildly off-base on this one! You just wait!"
Not a very persuasive premise I'm afraid.
Frankly, it is enormously embarrassing.

 

[Silhouette]

Would you do what Lot did?
Simple question.

Immaterial. Neither you nor I would know what to do in such a circumstance. The allegory's abstract core says "gay sex is worse than giving your virgin daughters up". That's the Bible's way of spelling out the core truth of the lesson. And yes, I probably would because as I said, my daughters would be safe as anything with gay predators wanting sex. Remember? His offer was like offering a lion some tofu in preference to a bloody wildabeast.

But we're getting off the topic of Hollywood setting out to batter the last vestiges of faith to forward the gay agenda. I haven't seen the Moses movie but I'll bet you dollars to donuts that there are subliminal or innuendo to homosexuality being OK in it. If not, that's sure to come in subsequent "biblical movies" being filmed probably right now as we debate this, right?

Most actual biblical scholars would not come to the lesson conclusion you have from that story in the bible. You should read up on it. You are far off base, even from conservative evangelical scholars. Train wreck.
Do your daughters know you would be willing to risk them on your theological assumption?
I hope for your sake they don't. For their sake, I hope they do, and see their father for the loon he really is and run while they can still protect themselves.
So now your Hollywood argument is "I haven't seen the movie, but I'll bet there is gay stuff in it. And if not, well, you just wait and see! It's coming, even if I'm wildly off-base on this one! You just wait!"
Not a very persuasive premise I'm afraid.
Frankly, it is enormously embarrassing.

Your crafted myopia isn't going to sway the topic. Hollywood is up to the final blow. You know it and you celebrate it.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Immaterial. Neither you nor I would know what to do in such a circumstance. The allegory's abstract core says "gay sex is worse than giving your virgin daughters up". That's the Bible's way of spelling out the core truth of the lesson. And yes, I probably would because as I said, my daughters would be safe as anything with gay predators wanting sex. Remember? His offer was like offering a lion some tofu in preference to a bloody wildabeast.

But we're getting off the topic of Hollywood setting out to batter the last vestiges of faith to forward the gay agenda. I haven't seen the Moses movie but I'll bet you dollars to donuts that there are subliminal or innuendo to homosexuality being OK in it. If not, that's sure to come in subsequent "biblical movies" being filmed probably right now as we debate this, right?

Most actual biblical scholars would not come to the lesson conclusion you have from that story in the bible. You should read up on it. You are far off base, even from conservative evangelical scholars. Train wreck.
Do your daughters know you would be willing to risk them on your theological assumption?
I hope for your sake they don't. For their sake, I hope they do, and see their father for the loon he really is and run while they can still protect themselves.
So now your Hollywood argument is "I haven't seen the movie, but I'll bet there is gay stuff in it. And if not, well, you just wait and see! It's coming, even if I'm wildly off-base on this one! You just wait!"
Not a very persuasive premise I'm afraid.
Frankly, it is enormously embarrassing.

Your crafted myopia isn't going to sway the topic. Hollywood is up to the final blow. You know it and you celebrate it.

I know nothing of the kind.
What I DO know is you are wildly paranoid and a conspiracy nut.