It's time for someone preferably a Christian to charge a gay with a hate crime in California, them being targeted just because of their sexual preference {heterosexual}. Many gays seem to think that it's ok to assualt heterosexuals just because the gays are protected under the law, well it's time to see if justice swings both ways. {pun intended} The last protest by Christians which consisted of praying for gays and singing was meant by violence by groups of gays, assault is the crime. Even a touch against a person without their consent is considered assualt and the gays went much further than that, throwing hot coffee and other items, trying to take off the garments of some of the Christians while the police did nothing to protect them. well A brave Christian needs to go to the district attorney office with taped evidence of the assualt and demand the gay be arrested for the crime, with the added Hate crime tacked on.
What say you my friends?
That's just it MM. It's not becoming a Christian to do such.
Remember Christ said, if they slap you on the cheek give him the other?
Christians are notoriously absent from pushing these types of lawsuits. They take the stand of Christ which is to pray and do good to your enemy and those who persecute and revile you. We do not act like them. We are not to be like them. We are called to be different than the world.
Remember Christ just before he was crucified? The scriptures say he was silent in front of his accusers even though he was innocent. He was like a sheep before his shearers. Not a word in his defense. He just prayed for them and loved on them despite the most awful persecution he received.
That's what Christians are supposed to do in times such as this. Marching off to court is not bringing glory to God. We understand it's not about us.....it's all about HIM.
To the contrary with these homosexuals, it's all about them.....to heck with the rest of the world.
There is no law about protecting ones self after turning the cheek one time. Protecting ones self is the first law of survival, even Christ blew his stack at the money changers at the temple. so if Christ can blow it once so can a Christian.
Hence the importance of context.
I think they should be prosecuted. But I doubt it will happen. But not for hate crimes. They are still crimes against freedom (hate crimes). But for the real crimes.
could you please explain more?
No one group should be ABOVE THE LAW!!!!
But too many are.
The only way to test this is for someone to bring it before the law, if not in California then in a more conservative state like Wyoming, or Utah.
I agree with Dr. Guy. The concept of hate crime is silly. There are crimes, plain and simple. But yes, anyone actively assaulting another person should be charged with a crime. But there seems to be an attempt to take an isolated incident(s?) and use them as a condemnation of an entire group.
Hate crimes were invented to protect "specific groups" of people like if a white gets in a fight with a black man it's just a fight, BUT if the whiteman calls the blackman a nigger while fighting it becomes a hate crime. Same with gays, it's time that these protected groups be treated like the rest of us, a crime is a crime is a crime.
That has more sophisticated meaning. It was taboo to slap with the left (unclean) hand, or slap on the other side of the cheek. Basically, once someone wrongs you, you accept them as equals (which is what a slap on the other cheek would mean). It does not mandate pacifism, just condemns down-and-out grudges.
Amen.
Glad you agree.
Yes it does have a more sophisticated meaning, but not sure where you're getting your explanation regarding the left hand in this context? Let's look at it in context: Here it is in full
"You have heard that it has been said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you that you resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite you on your right cheek turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue you at the law and take away your coat let him have your cloke also. And whosoever shall compel you to go a mile, go with him two. Give to him that asks you and from him that would borrow of you turn not him away." Matt 5:38-41
the principle here is to be willing to suffer loss for another. It's about not having the attitude of the world which we know is everyman for himself.
The law of retaliation did provide for the ending of feuds (Ex 21:24) but Christ showed another way to do the same.
Elie, don't you know that a "protected" group can't do any wrong? They're just standing up for their rights, not breaking the law.
I await breathlessly for my fair lady to call/
Yeh it seems that way , gays can bash, hit, do anything they want to because they are suppossed to be weak and sissified.
I disagree with that statement. Though I know you said it to make a point.
I do agree that if they, the gay persons involved, assaulted someone, then yes, they should be held for that offense. It is after all a free county and anyone can protest what they don't like, without violence being involved hopefully! While I do support gay rights, as I do any individual's rights, I do not support violence unless in self-protectionf. They might not have liked the protests, and it is understandable that they would get angry but resorting to physical harm is wrong.
Certainly my friend!
If you consider the two excerpts that were presented by you and KFC, one might conclude that Jesus was a hypocrite at best or worse a schizophrenic.
If you consider KFC's reference to Matt 5 one might conclude that Christians are to become a doormat to the world if you adhere to the literal text vs. considering the importance of the context here.
As KFC mentions Jesus is clearly referencing the Torah. However I disagree with her understanding of the context of Torah.
These laws are not saying that if someone happens slaps you on the right cheek to say, "Thank you sir, may I have another."
Let's consider the passage in Matt 5.
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ 39 “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. 41 “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
All four of these verses are under the context of legal retribution in the Torah. Please refer to the following Torah passages: Ex 21:12-36, Lev 24:17-23, Deut 19:14-21.
The context that I see from the Torah references is that once I have 'wronged' someone (even if they are evil) that I am to give him measure for measure (the 'value' of eye for an eye to which the Rabbis agree vs the literal). Jesus is saying not to just do measure for measure but to go beyond that to show true repentance for the 'offence' to someone by inflicting more of a loss on oneself.
This supports the notion of the context of what you provided:
You are right there is NO law about protecting yourself rather on the contrary. There are several laws that support the contrary!
Christ blew his stack at the money changers because these were most likely Levites who knew better. These were the priests that were to have studied the Torah and to be advocating fairness and justice. These priests had forgotten the primary purpose for the Temple. I believe it is Josephus that goes into depth of the crookedness of the money changers.
One example was that a man brought his lamb to be offered as a sacrifice in the Temple. The overseeing priest would tell the man that his lamb was not acceptable and would offer to sell him an ‘acceptable’ lamb for a few shekels more in addition to the ‘trade in’ lamb. Then the overseeing priest would have a designated servant/herdsman that worked under him take that lamb and literally walk the lamb around the outside wall of the temple. This would be long enough so that by the time that the servant returned with the so called unacceptable lamb that the previous owner had already entered the temple and would not see the servant return with his ‘defected’ lamb. The priest would then sell this man’s lamb as an acceptable lamb to the next sucker. (this is my retelling as I didn’t have the ability to quote).
I would equate this scenario to that of a righteous police taking names of all the officers willingly involved in corrupt dealings.
I hope that sufficiently clarifies for you.
Shalom aleichem
No comments?
That's just it, nothing was done basically the law just let the gays run amok. Why? because of the sickness of the city itself, San Francisco is a city that suffers from an illusion that it is above the law, a law unto itself. They don't care about federal law and the feds do nothing in way of punishment, like cutting off funds to colleges that bar military recruiters from campuses.
WOW what great statements and for anyone to remain silent means to me, that your points were so strongly made they have NOTHING in the way of rebuttal! I declare you the winner of this part of the debate!
not quite. I just don't want to argue with my friend AD.
I am quite sure AD can handle any religious debate with anyone here KFC, he is one of the very few I have outside contact with so I know him a little bit.
OK, Happy Thanksgiving day to you and your family KFC.
I know quite well, that we will wind up agreeing to disagree?
Speaking of which, you have mail.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
