Modern Bibles - Atonement - Part VI

by Perry 33 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Hillary

  I know he is here to preach. I have an agenda too. It is to have a conversation. I think the best way to show just how these people think is to just let them express themselves. I find thiests have their own agenda. I like a good many of them. Others are a little more close minded. Either way, I enjoy the conversations, asking question, trying to learn, and expressing my own point of view. I am open to the possibility that I have viewpoints that will change. And I am serious when I say that I have not ruled out god. I am sincere when I ask Perry and others the questions I do. Maybe he will illuminate me. Who am I to say? And if he doesn't illuminate me, then he illuminates himself.

  But he didn't and he hasn't answered my questions. And as he tries to answer (or duck the questions as the case may be) then he shows what he knows and what he doesn't know. It's not my job to convince others that Perry is right or wrong. They can read for themselves.

  I do challenge Perry to answer my questions. Here is a good one. Is your warrior god going to kill me for not believing as you do? Yes or no. It is a simple, straightforward and fair question. (please avoid the JW mumbo jumbo that "I don't judge, god does that, I can't read your heart, etc etc etc.) That is a given. My question is: Does your god teach that I will be dead for not believing as you do?

  Thanks!
• 

  Rapunzel

  It is indeed ironic that Perry should post a picture of "religious dildos." Isn't the term applicable to people as well as objects? For example, speaking in the vernacular, couldn't a person say: "Oh, don't listen to him/her!!! [S]he's just a..."
• 

  Rapunzel

  Jeff - Your point is well taken. As you know, it is crucial that a conversation [a dialogue] flow in both directions, or else it is a rant or tirade.

  Perry never answers questions. He is incapable of any thought, never mind original thought. He is full of hate; and I have the sneaking suspicion that his loathing is actually self-loathing. It's interesting to note the photos and websites that he "cuts and pastes." They are from the "lunatic fringe." This is especially true in the way that Perry portrays gays and their "street fairs." For example, he never posts anything about culturally and politically conservative gays. Just as heterosexuals can be found all along the political and cultural spectrum, so it is the case with gays. There are many gays who hold politically conservative views. There are many, many gays who are pious and religiously conservative.

  In short, homosexuals [both male and female] are extremely heterogeneous. Perry is very careful and conscious in his "editing." He consciously chooses to portray only a very miniscule segment of gay society - a segment of gay society which is by absolutely no means representative of homosexuals in general. Most gay people are indistinguishable from heterosexual people. They work at the same jobs, and live in the same neighborhoods.

  In essence, Perry presents an obscenely limited, and thus distorting, image of gays [He seems obsessed with S and M. He should be reminded that it is not only a very few gays who are into it, there are also straights who do it. S and M is by no means limited to gays]. In consciously and willfully choosing to present such a deceptive and skewed portrait, Perry is a liar and a coward.

  I mentioned how I suspected that Perry seems to be suffering from self-loathing. In fact, it would not surprise me if Perry himself were gay. He fits the profile exactly. He seems to have in his possession an inordinate amount of photos taken at "gay street fairs." I wonder as to the source of these photos. How did Perry come to have them? Did Perry himself take the photos? If so, why was Perry at such a street fair to begin with?Or, did one of Perry's friends [or "partners"] take the photos?

  Perry fits the classic profile of a self-loathing, hypocritical gay. He obviously neurotic and obsessed with the notions of "guilt" and "sin." He compulsively presents grotesque and misleading charicatures of homosexuals [or as he calls them, "sodomites"]. Perry seems to be an inwardly tormented and conflicted individual. This is evdient in the way he "writes" ["rants is more the word for it].

  Although I know it is a true exercise in futility, I would like to tell Perry that help is available in the form of counseling. Perry need not suffer self-loathing. In essence, the viewpoint traditional Judeo-Christianity, in regard to homosexuality, is itself perverse bullshit. As Mark Twain said, the Bible is full of inumerable lies. In our twenty-first century, no one need suffer a sense of guilt or self-loathing simply because they are gay. Gays share in the same human dignity as everyone else.
• 

  Rapunzel

  In a court of law, all parties are required "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Half-truths [or partial truths] are always misleading and can sometimes be even more pernicious than outright and blatant lies. In the context of the present discussion, I just want to say that if someone wants to portray a certain segment of society - the homosexual community for example - then he/she had better depict it in its entire complexity and diversity. To selectively pick a tiny sub-segment as representative is to defame and slur the general community at large.

  There really is no such thing as "gay culture;" it far more accurate to speak of "gay cultures" in the plural. Homosexuals are an extremely diverse group, just as diverse as heterosexuals. The only thing which unites them is an erotic attraction to members of their own gender, and that's all. This erotic attraction is biological, not cultural. It's not a trait that is "learned." It is a trait that is innate. It is absolutely impossible to change one's orientation. I consider the question - What causes homosexuality? - to be at once a "loaded" question and a naive one at that. After all, how often does one ask: "What causes heterosexuality?" Can anyone honestly say that this question is often asked? When people inquire as to the "cause" of homosexuality, their question often carries an unspoken implication. They often pose the question as if there were some pathology or abnormality associated with homosexuality. In fact, while homosexuals do not comprise a numerical or statistical norm, there is nothing abnormal about them. Homosexuality is found in every country and society worldwide. Moreover, homosexuality is found in many species other than homo sapiens [humanity].

  To return to my original point of telling [or portraying] the whole truth, I just want to mention the infamous "Willie Horton case" that occurred about two decades ago in the United States. In this infamous case, certain people shamelessly manipulated the case of Willie Horton to smear African-Americans. The case is now infamous and constitutes a classic example of "race baiting" and fear-mongering. No one with half a brain needs to be reminded that African-American culture is extremely diversified and complex, as is any culture. To post a few pictures portraying a very small sub-segment of a culture as representative of that culture is nothing but a smear and, effectively, a lie. While a few gays do engage in what can be called "fringe" activites, and while a few gays do profess fringe beliefs, there are many more gays who are just as outraged by these things as certain heterosexuals. As I have stated, there are many gays who are quite conservative as to cultural, political, and religious ideas.

  In this respect, many gays closely resemble evangelical Christians. Just as it is the case with gays, I recognize that evangelicals are a diverse lot. They are not all semi-illiterate, uncivilized, Bible-thumping, inbred rednecks frothing at the mouths and screaming racist and antisemitic epithets. They are not all hypocritical ignoramuses. Just as it is the case with gays, evangelical Christians can be found on all socio-economical levels. There are both rich and poor evangelicals. Evangelcals are of all races and ethnic groups. There are even gay evangelicals. There is a growing awareness among evangelicals about environmental issues such as pollution and global warming. There is growing concern about solving the problems of poverty and world hunger. Perhaps evangelical are begininning to realize that their Leader had absolutely nothing to say about homosexuality. For Jesus, it was decidedly a "non-issue." I believe that there is an expanding diversity of thought among evangelicals. Perhaps they will gradually renounce their millenial and eschatological pipe-dream of the coming Kingdom. Perhaps they will learn to live in the present and for the present.

  And they all can participate in democracy. Many modern, Western democracies are secular republics. As such, they don't take orders from mount Sinai, mount Zion, mount Ararat, or any other mountain. They don't accept the command[ment]s of some Bearded Thunderer with a large penis [envy?], circumcised or uncircumcised. Because democracies are secular societies, it is hard to imagine such a thing as "blasphemy." This means that people have the right to say what they want about God in the public sphere. I admit that the "religious dildos" display is utterly tasteless. However, such tasteless displays have to be permitted in democratic society. At least people can take comfort in one idea, which is that because - due to the very fact that - such unpopular expression is protected by law, then the law will also protect the expression of other ideas.

  Most importantly, I believe that, in a democratic and secular republic, the primary goal should be to broaden the scope of democracy so as to include as many people as possible. Everyone - all groups - should be extended full rights and privileges. This should be an ever-expanding ideal within a republic.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Perry

  You don't know when to quit, can the King James be trusted?

  Why does the KJV agree with the NWT in not having a reference of prayer to Christ at John 14:14?

  KJV: “If you ask anything….”
  NWT:"If you ask anything….”

  Now look at the NASB: “If you ask ME anything….” Modern translations agree that here the Lord speaks of prayer to Himself, while the KJV lacks the word “me” in the phrase “If you ask ME anything in my name…”

  Are the JWs right?

  I don't think so.

  Look at this Conspiracy?
  
  Compare the KJV at Rev. 1:8:
  I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

  See anything missing? Is "the Lord" God?

  This is the verse that the NWT adds "Jehovah" by mistranslating Lord.
  The NWT: "I am the Al'pha and the O·me'ga," says Jehovah God, "the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty."

  We agree that there is no warrent to add Jehovah here, dont we?

  Again look at the NASB: "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

  Which one is the clearest? Isn't Jesus Lord God Almighty?

  In spite of its problems, I like the KJV. It was well done for its day. You're doing a disservice by casting such sweeping doubts about "Modern Bibles"
• 

  Perry

  Good Morning Jeff,

  Hope you had a good Sunday, I know I did. Sunday afternoon naps are magical!

  You wrote:

  Your essay on guilt was interesting. My point wasn't about guilt though, it was about sin. "Sin" produces imo (and many others) unreasonable amounts of guilt. To suggest that the eradication of guilt is my main point is wrong. I hope that helps.

  I must apologize then if I got it wrong. I was trying to follow your lead here:

  I saw the very sad consequences of "sin" in action with the guilt and self destructive behavior it often engenders.

  Especially since my questions here were not addressed here:

  Addditionally, even if we disregard all of God's ideas concerning right and wrong, are you willing to stand before the Supreme Judge and have him replay your life and then have him dish out to you, the judgments that you have dished out to others? Ever shown indifference when mercy was requested? Ever passed by someone in need? Ever said God doesn't exist? Surely, if there is a God worth worshipping who deals in justice, we should expect the same from him, right?

  And since you apparently agree that the two are inextricabley related here:

  The anxieties sin and guilt cause have to be alleviated, and need to be "covered" by a blood sacrifice that supposedly occurred 2000 years ago. Fanciful.

  Since you didn't answer my question having to do with sin, I followed your lead on the guilt aspect of your argument. I am more than willing to go back to sin because that is the cause of guilt. Fair enough.

  Sin means basically missing the mark. Have you ever said to yourself, "I will not lie" "I will not steal", I will not commit adultery, I will be merciful, I will love my neighbor?

  Have you ever violated any rules that you have erected for yourself? That's sin. Ancient Greeks called it virtue. God calls it sin. The way I see it, and please interject any other options you see available here, is that if a person is going to deal with this phenomanon, to have the subsequent stress "alleviated" as you put it; they can.

  1.) Go into denial and excuse themselves each time a violation occcurs. This of course sets up a cognitive dissonace where the subject believes he has standards, and to be "good", even though at the same time he increasingly violates them the longer he lives. Or,

  2.) He can erradicate the standards themselves so that he can declare himself righteous by default.

  I personally can't see any other options here, can you? Denial or a-morality.

  Of course, this doesn't even broach the subject of justice when we judge others by the very standards we violate. Or if we say that we are a-moral, having no standards ... but we then arbitraily set some up for others when it suits our personal interests. If there is a God, and this thread assumes that there is; If he is just, one can assume that he sees all this and will apply rules of justice at some point for each moral being.

  I agree with you that it is better to deal with the cause rather than the symptom. Guilt is simply an emotion that delivers high quality information to the cognitive faculties for examination. If it is consistently ignored, it will cease to function but that doesn't mean that the sin has gone away.

  One of many problems I have wth Sin, aside from the arbitrary aspects of labelling certain conduct as offensive to god, is the sad affects to those who truly believe they will never be able to live up to gods expectations. To suggest that if one suffers inordinate guilt though being athiest means that the thiests way is better lacks a foundation. At least if athiest's suffer inordinate guilt, it isn't institutionalized. Anyone can have issues, and all of us usually do to one extent or another.

  These really are excellent points. It is related to many aspects of the parts of man, psychological, spiritual, and practicality. Without some mechanism for dealing with the issues you raise here, it wouldn't be very wise at all to jump head long into reality. I mean, we still need to function, put on our shoes in the morning and go to work, pay the bills etc.

  If you are a life long salesman like me, it is even more critical to be "on" at work...thinking positive thoughts, thinking of success not failure, possibilities, not futility. I want to mainly save this discussion for my coming section on Sanctification, but briefly, what God has done is to change the motivational direction for man: He has made it possible to morally and rightfully, with a foundation in reality, not imagination; to change the motivational direction of man that is primarily a "moving away from" to a primarily "moving toward".

  This is critical. While the former is by far the stronger, it is in the latter that man experiences his full potential as a composit, moral, spiritual, and physical being. The obstacles to this process is what God's business is in the life of a believer.... and it is awesome.

  The institutionalization of guilt and the blackmail by god for worship is what upsets me the most.

  Don't be upset Jeff. If you consider God blackmailing you, than you'll have to also concede that any standard or authority is also blackmailing you to some degree, since we break them all, and suffer the consequences.....if only psychologically. As moral beings we'll always deal with our failures either through illusion, a-moraility, or supernaturally. There is no real escape from this aspect of our existence.

  For me, I'd much rather just ignore the issues, and I did for a long time. I'm very practical. When the pain of not dealing with morality became greater that the pain of dealing with it honestly, God happened. God saw me coming a long time before I ever wanted to see him. He was the last Person I ever wanted to deal with that's for sure.

  Christians talk about love, and how we can be attracted to Christs love and his sacrifice. And by the way, if you dont' appreciate it and exercise faith, you are going to hell.

  Wrong Jeff. You are perfectly free to do as you please. People go to hell because of the un-atoned (unpaid) crimes that they have committed. If we had judges that never exacted fines for traffic violations, how long would it take for drivers to sink into chaotic driving? I've been in foreign taxis and KNOW what a wild and crazy experience that is. Could a driving society without fines be said to be lawful? Maybe on some philosopher's dusty book shelf in his ivory tower. But, for the folks....the answer would have to be no.

  Good judges don't levy fines because the people before him may or may not love him. He levies fines because of the violations that have been committed by the defendant. Really, punishment is a necessary and practical aspect of love and a duty of justice.

  But don't feel you HAVE to believe or anything....... Thus the guilt. What am I supposed to do? I am told it is all about love, but then I have a hatchet over me all the time if I don't believe? And that isn't supposed to engender unusual amounts of guilt if I am blackmailed to believe on pain of death? There is no love there, only guilt inducement.

  Jeff, here you assume that God somehow causes death, and that left alone....you'll just keep on living. I believe that this uniquely ex-JW belief is due to the erroneous and phobic teaching of the WT. They taught us that the paradise was right around the corner and that if we did what the WT said we'd keep on living and God wouldn't destroy us. This of course is biblical non-sense:

  Hebrews 9:27

  it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment

  The provable reality is that we all die. That is not the issue here. Here is the real issue according to Jesus, who is also I might add the Judge:

  And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

  I have not ruled god out, but I know I won't ever believe in a god of judgement. If he exists, he has been to hidden, too "whack-a-moleish" if you will to reserve the right to destroy people who do not believe in him.

  Again, I see WT phobic reasoning. God won't punish people because they don't believe in him as you claim. He'll punish people for their violations of their own laws that they have hypocritically judged others by and quite possibly by his own laws, which by the way much overlap peoples' and societies' own laws.

  Most of us are guilty of watching trashy day time shows like Judge Judy or something like that. The hight point is always when the one suing (calling for justice) is found out by strategic questioning, that they either lied or excused themselves for the same violation they are suing for.

  We love it when they are caught and the judgment comes down along the lines...."if it's judgment you want, then it's judgment you'll get. Judgment in favor of the defendant." I think we like those episodes because if reminds of a truth we know deeply, even if it's buried. That truth is that we really don't want justice..... we want mercy.

  Only our pride stands in the way from receiving it.
• 

  Perry

  Moving on to some of your other comments Jeff:

  Noteably, these statements are simply your opinion on the text. I have yet to see a scripture that backs up this interpretation. "God empowered sin?" I don't see it that way.

  That's what the scripture says :

  But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

  Of course God knew (since he is the Alpha and Omega) that his interfering with fallen man, his enemy, that by giving him the law, sin would take that occasion to increase it's temporary enjoyment by providing a clearer knowledge of it's wronfulness. Man is depraved, and enjoys the temporary rush of doing "wrong" if he doesn't get caught of course.

  If that is true, that makes me want to worship him less. By the way, to defeat sin, why doesn't he just get rid of it?

  In a strict sense of justice, since we are God's enemy , he knows that his laws aren't going "to make" anyone want to worship him....especially since all (own their own) CANNOT WORSHIP HIM IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH, which is what his desire is.

  Let's look at your solution closely:

  Here is something that would have been more logical and loving and that would have undone the suffering of billions of people through time: GET RID OF SIN.

  How would you suggest he do that? If God makes it impossible to sin...how does that impact freedom? My computer doesn't 'sin", but I also don't want to hug it either.

  DON'T PROVE YOUR POINT THAT "SIN IS BAD" BY ALLOWING BILLIONS OF PEOPLE TO SUFFER FOR ADAM AND EVE'S "MISTAKE".

  Why shouldn't he? We are his enemy,remember? Our parents wanted to do their own thing. Why not let them go with it? Why be so oppressive and controling? And, people don't only suffer for Adam and Eve's sin, they suffer for many other reasons as well, including their own.

  LET ADAM AND EVE PAY FOR THEIR OWN CRIMES. INFORM THE RECENTLY CREATED EVE THAT A BULLY AND CRIMINAL WOULD TRY TO TRICK HER INTO EATING A BANNED FRUIT. DON'T CLAIM TO BE A GOOD PARENT, THEN LET YOUR RECENTLY CREATED "BABY" VENTURE OUT AND CONDEMN ALL MANKIND TO SUFFERING AND DEATH BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TELL HER ABOUT SATAN.

  God gave her a stong warning and said that she would die. Satan changed God's Word and said you will not die. Eve chose to believe Satan and not God and suffered the righteous consequences. We are faced with the same choice, by the way, of who we will believe. That is why salvation is through belief and not works.

  You do realize Perry that your whole belief on sin and atonement is rooted in the fable of Adam and Eve? For logics sake, do you want me to believe that mankind has been suffering and dying since creation because a woman was talked into eating a piece of fruit from a tree not belonging to her by a talking snake?

  You are the one who brought it up here. I'm just as comfortable continuing the discussion on Atonement on most any level. My arguments have not been limited to the Garden of Eden account. In fact, it has had little to do with that.

  I think mental illness is abundant in any walk of life. Trying to be a good person outside the framework of religion doesn't result in mental illness. But to believe that you are not capable of pleasing an invisible deity absolutely does cause mental illness.

  People deal with cognitive dissonance and denial with various degrees of 'success", I agree. I also agree that trying to please God is a waste of time as well. I was quite pleased to learn that the New Testament of Jesus clearly warns against this, before a person is born again. Jesus proposed a Blood Covenant, an infusion of Spirit, and faith in His abilities, not ours to get the job done. He took all the pressure off.

  Thanks for sharing your beliefs on atonement. It was a good exchange of ideas.

  Thanks for you insights as well.
• 

  Perry

  More of your comments addressed here:

  Since irony seems to be wasted on you, I won't waste my time explaining the picture.

  I don't really understand your conflict here. Can you expand?

  I would assume, having read some other opinions you have posted on the subject, that toleration for homosexuals isn't something that you have on your to do list.

  Can you show me an example of where I was being especially intolerant of Homosexuals of say a different group?

  Chistians have never sought to have a monolithic society like the way I see Secularists are pushing on folks today. Jesus promoted a composit political society, a mosiac of peoples when he said to pay Caesar's things to Caesar and God's things to God. Christianity was supposed to exist along side the political structure, separate, not a part of it....but impacting it.

  I am sure you are at peace that your warrior god will destroy them all, or at the least, make sure that they burn in hell.

  As I pointed out, God's primary enemy is Sin and it's result Death. This is what he conquors, out in the open, in the lives of believers. It makes no real difference in the end what particular sins dominate us, or what particular sins provide temporary enjoyment. The picture was a graphic example of how a physical reminder of God's laws (in this case a Jesus sexual instrument) provides heightened excitement inducement for those breaking God's laws. There are many other examples:

  You didn't defend anything about atonement. You didn't even address why homosexuality is a sin. It just is. I knew that would be your response. Your inability to show why this conduct offends your invisible and heretofore unavailable deity speaks for itself.

  Sure I did Jeff. I've repeatedly shown how sin isn't limited to just God's laws. The burden is on you to demonstrate how people don't miss moral marks, either their own or God's. If you could show this, then all of Christianity would immediately collapse. I have addressed how many sins can't be measured the same way others can man, many times. You apparently don't like the fact that God can see the beginning and the end and hence is in a unique position to make certain judgment calls.

  I have since read all of your essay's defending the bible. It is necesarry for you to do this, because frankly, the more we learn about the bible, translation, the extant MSS that are available, etc, the more it needs defending.

  Can you give me an example of this?

  The only way to keep on believing the shallow world view that fundamentalist Christians promote is to continue to insist that the fragmented scrolls of the bible that have been found in the sand and caves of the middle east are unerring and truly god speaking to us.

  With all due respect, that is really the argument of those defending the 1% of the minority texts. The argument of those defending the superiority of the 99% majority texts is quite the opposite. Their argument is that instead of God preserving his word in the sands of Egypt or on the dusty shelves of a blood thirsty politico/religious monolithic stucture in the RCC, he instead preserved it in the living peoples indigenous to Europe. Those peole hand copied God's word for centuries and opposed the merger of church and state and died for their biblical beliefs by the millions.

  How else do you continue to use such an offensive, mideval and ignorant term like "Sodomites" to describe the gay community? "Because it is in the bible."

  Jeff, we all come from an organization that took great joy in playing word games. We've since learned for example, that we can be deceived into "observing" the Memorial of Christ's death, while at the same time pubilcally rejecting Jesus by doing the opposite regarding his emblematic body and blood. Those play on words are directly resposible for us believing that we were observing the occasion in the sense of participation, while in reality we were doing the opposite.

  The WT has taught me to be very careful regarding the use of words, especially those that deal with fundamental doctrines. I still refer to modern bibles whenever I feel the need for a different flavor of reading. But, when it gets down to the nitty gritty, I have learned to defer to the KJV and will use its terminology, and let the chips fall where they may in the end.

  It is clear that you are nothing more then a bigoted individual.

  Wow, that is a strong charge. Can you give me an example of where I was bigoted?

  When I asked you how two gay people or two straight people not married having sex afftects your life, you gave no answer.

  Sure I did. I indicated (maybe of a different occasion I don't know) that the act you describe might have nothing to do with me, but that didn't prove your point that there was no harm in it . I further explored the idea that to be able to make the declaration of "no harm" a person would have to be "good" and would have to be able to see the beginning and the end...remember? The pronouncement of "no harm" is irrelevant to me as a bystander.

  Of course, public sexual dispalys in front of children and legal sodomy in parks and bathrooms like the Sodomite coalition is pushing on the rest of us does directly impact me and my children. But, I agree that is a slightly different issue than to the one I suppose you are proffering.

  You still have the right to believe what you will, correct?

  Those rights are disappearing as societies become monolithic under the merger of the new religion of humanism and the State.

  Why preach hate! (because the hate comes from the bible, I know....)

  Wow...hate? Can you show me where I preached hate? Atonement is about God's love for mankind. He gave himself as a sin offering. He paid all the fines for all the mistakes and viloations of not only our own standards but his infinitely higher ones as well. He took away all guilt, offers a defeat of sin in real time in our lives and unending fellowship with him and other as well in perfection. What could be more of the opposite of hate than that?

  I was hoping for a little more then you have given on the subject. You certainly have not attracted me to the god you worship.

  I wasn't trying to attract you to God. That is impossible. But, I think that you have a lot of explaining to do given the charges you've launched at me in this last post.
• 

  Perry

  I do challenge Perry to answer my questions. Here is a good one. Is your warrior god going to kill me for not believing as you do? Yes or no. It is a simple, straightforward and fair question. (please avoid the JW mumbo jumbo that "I don't judge, god does that, I can't read your heart, etc etc etc.) That is a given. My question is: Does your god teach that I will be dead for not believing as you do?

  Already thoroughly pointed that out Jeff. Here's your answers in short form.

  No and No.

  Now will you please answer mine about your bigotry charge? Since this thread is about Atonement, I'd appreciate if you would IM me.
• 

  VoidEater

  The above caption was followed by a picture of dildo sales at some pro gay gathering.

  Actually, appears to be an oft-cited photo of Folsom Street Fair, a fetishist gathering (not exclusively gay, though widely spoken of as if it is).

  Back to the OP, I am always surprised at the Pharisaical legalese some would force upon God. An early phrase that caught my eye was something about sealing a contract by the death of the two parties...remarkable poetic imagery. I can see how it fascinates certain individuals.