Christianity - the real target of hate in gay issue (1 Viewer)

[Shamgar]

Christianity - the real target of hate in gay issue. . . .why? Compromise to gays is the destruction to the very tenants of Christianity. So the truth is easy to see by everyone chosing the common enemy to their movements . . . which is Christianity.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

What tenants of christianity are under attack by the "gay issue?"

 

[MikeyC]

I'm not a Christian and don't claim to know its "tenents," but in a secular society, even if the majority of people are Christians, any laws made should respect all/most religions, not just out of the beliefs of one. The fact that Christians believe homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean our nation has the right to alienate them from all of our institutions. Yes, technically they have the choice to marry the opposite sex, but marriage should be about the relationship, not the religion. Christian churches can continue to deny gay marriages, but our government should not. Especially considering there are benefits (as well as burdens) provided by our government to relationships that have reached the final stage of marriage. Homosexual and heterosexual relationships should be respected by the government. Christianity can continue to deny gay marriages WITHIN THEIR OWN CHURCHES so that Christians can uphold Christian tenents. However, the United States government should not be holding up Christian tenents. Not eating pork is an important Jewish "tenent" and I think we'd all find it unreasonable if pork was against the law. The only laws that the government should support are laws which protect all people's beliefs and rights, not the beliefs and rights of a few.

 

[MikeyC]

I'm not a Christian and don't claim to know its "tenents," but in a secular society, even if the majority of people are Christians, any laws made should respect all/most religions, not just the beliefs of one. The fact that Christians believe homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean our nation has the right to alienate them from all of our institutions. Yes, technically they have the choice to marry the opposite sex, but marriage should be about the relationship, not the religion. Christian churches can continue to deny gay marriages, but our government should not. Especially considering there are benefits (as well as burdens) provided by our government to relationships that have reached the final stage of marriage. Homosexual and heterosexual relationships should be respected by the government. Christianity can continue to deny gay marriages WITHIN THEIR OWN CHURCHES so that people's beliefs and rights, not the beliefs and rights of a few.

 

[Shamgar]

What tenants of christianity are under attack by the "gay issue?"

That homosexuality is a sin.
Homosexuals are not to be made pastors in Christian churches.
Homosexuals are not to be married.
Christians are not to practice pluralism or eqaulity to those excluded from the kingdom of heaven.
Christians are not to separate their personal belief from the public practices. . .

How about these for a start . . .

 

[shuamort]

That homosexuality is a sin.
Homosexuals are not to be made pastors in Christian churches.
Homosexuals are not to be married.
Christians are not to practice pluralism or eqaulity to those excluded from the kingdom of heaven.
Christians are not to separate their personal belief from the public practices. . .

How about these for a start . . .

Umm, who is attacking whom?

 

[MikeyC]

That homosexuality is a sin.
Homosexuals are not to be made pastors in Christian churches.
Homosexuals are not to be married.
Christians are not to practice pluralism or eqaulity to those excluded from the kingdom of heaven.
Christians are not to separate their personal belief from the public practices. . .

How about these for a start . . .

Like I said, they can be excluded from Christianity and Christian churches if those are you beliefs, but that does NOT mean the government can support these Christian beliefs since we live in a secular society. Under our constitution, homosexuals should be given equal rights and protections just the same as any Christian.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I'm not a Christian and don't claim to know its "tenents," but in a secular society, even if the majority of people are Christians, any laws made should respect all/most religions, not just the beliefs of one. The fact that Christians believe homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean our nation has the right to alienate them from all of our institutions. Yes, technically they have the choice to marry the opposite sex, but marriage should be about the relationship, not the religion. Christian churches can continue to deny gay marriages, but our government should not. Especially considering there are benefits (as well as burdens) provided by our government to relationships that have reached the final stage of marriage. Homosexual and heterosexual relationships should be respected by the government. Christianity can continue to deny gay marriages WITHIN THEIR OWN CHURCHES so that people's beliefs and rights, not the beliefs and rights of a few.

Beautifully written! Excellent.

The problem is these so-called spiritually enhanced citizens of America only recognize people who agree with them. Their ability for tolerance is retarded by their religious zealousy.

People who are tolerant are OK with everyone pursuing whatever makes them whole while anti-gay evangelicals aren't tolerant of anything. It's quite a double standard.

 

[26 X World Champs]

That homosexuality is a sin.

No it's not! What is a sin is people who infringe on other's personal fredoms. No way would Jesus ever tell a gay person that he's/she's a sinner. Only the mutated religious intolerants believe that it's a sin, and they probably believe so out of ignorance. People are people, who they have consenual sex with is nobody's business.

Homosexuals are not to be made pastors in Christian churches.

That too is wrong since there are pastors, not too mention all the Gay priests in the Catholic church....

Homosexuals are not to be married.

To me this is the same thing as saying "Blacks are not to be married." It's blatant out and out bigotry.

Christians are not to practice pluralism or eqaulity to those excluded from the kingdom of heaven.

LA DI DA. What did Groucho Marx say?

I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.
Groucho Marx

Christians are not to separate their personal belief from the public practices.

What does this mean? I don't understand?

 

[Shamgar]

Like I said, they can be excluded from Christianity and Christian churches if those are you beliefs, but that does NOT mean the government can support these Christian beliefs since we live in a secular society. Under our constitution, homosexuals should be given equal rights and protections just the same as any Christian.

Christian are not obligated to follow any laws that violate the laws of God . . .

Daniel 6: 22 My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt. 23 Then was the king exceeding glad for him, and commanded that they should take Daniel out of the den. So Daniel was taken out of the den, and no manner of hurt was found upon him, because he believed in his God.

Umm, who is attacking whom?

The lies attack the truth . . .so that would be you and your side . . . the pro-homosexual agenda . . .

Psalms 14: 1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

No it's not! What is a sin is people who infringe on other's personal fredoms. No way would Jesus ever tell a gay person that he's/she's a sinner. Only the mutated religious intolerants believe that it's a sin, and they probably believe so out of ignorance. People are people, who they have consenual sex with is nobody's business.

Of course that is your unsubstantiated opinion not backed up by Scriputres . . .

That too is wrong since there are pastors, not too mention all the Gay priests in the Catholic church....

There are many things that the catholics do that violate the laws of God . . .just because someone does something doesn't mean they have Scriptural authority to do it.

To me this is the same thing as saying "Blacks are not to be married." It's blatant out and out bigotry.

God is a bigot againtst homosexuals/tares . . .not a single one will enter the kingdom of heaven. (1 Cor 6:9-11; Rev 22: 15)

 

[MikeyC]

Christian are not obligated to follow any laws that violate the laws of God . . .

Then go and join the Christian Dominionists who support the Theocratic States of America. In the meantime, I favor the United States of America which makes no law in favor of any single religion. Like I said, Christian Churhces do not have to honor gay marriages, the government should. I'm not saying that the law should force Christian Churces to allow gay marriages, I'm saying the government should allow gay marriages to occur. Maybe you personally won't recognize a gay marriage that occurs outside the chuch, but you are probably the same person who doesn't recognize a heterosexual marriage of a Muslim or Jewish couple. You have your beliefs as to what the laws of God are, I as a Deist believe that the laws of God are the laws of science and He makes no judgement on our souls (If souls exist). The point is that the US government cannot make laws based on Christian theology.

 

[Kelzie]

Christian are not obligated to follow any laws that violate the laws of God . . .

Daniel 6: 22 My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt. 23 Then was the king exceeding glad for him, and commanded that they should take Daniel out of the den. So Daniel was taken out of the den, and no manner of hurt was found upon him, because he believed in his God.

This is going to be real easy for ya. If it violates the laws of God...don't do it! Coveting your neighbors wife is a no no to God. So for that matter is dishonoring you parents. And adultry. But all are legal in the US. So the solution? Once again, if you believe something isn't allowed because of your religion, than don't do it. Don't marry a person of the same sex if you think same-sex marriage is wrong. But leave the rest of us coveting-disagreeing-with-our-parents-adultering-marrying-who-the-hell-we-want-to people alone.

 

[Shamgar]

This is going to be real easy for ya. If it violates the laws of God...don't do it! Coveting your neighbors wife is a no no to God. So for that matter is dishonoring you parents. And adultry. But all are legal in the US. So the solution? Once again, if you believe something isn't allowed because of your religion, than don't do it. Don't marry a person of the same sex if you think same-sex marriage is wrong. But leave the rest of us coveting-disagreeing-with-our-parents-adultering-marrying-who-the-hell-we-want-to people alone.

Sorry that is not allowed . . .

You have your beliefs as to what the laws of God are, I as a Deist believe that the laws of God are the laws of science and He makes no judgement on our souls (If souls exist). The point is that the US government cannot make laws based on Christian theology.

You certainly can preach whatever you like, but pagans such as yourself (or Thomas Jefferson) are not entering the kindgom of heaven either .

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

That homosexuality is a sin.
Homosexuals are not to be made pastors in Christian churches.
Homosexuals are not to be married.
Christians are not to practice pluralism or eqaulity to those excluded from the kingdom of heaven.
Christians are not to separate their personal belief from the public practices. . .

How about these for a start . . .

Can I have a few evangelical cartoony pictures with bible verses to back these up?

You certainly can preach whatever you like, but pagans such as yourself (or Thomas Jefferson) are not entering the kindgom of heaven either.

Whatever happened to God is love?

 

[Shamgar]

Can I have a few evangelical cartoony pictures with bible verses to back these up?

Oh the resident athiest "bible scholars" will glady post them for you . . .

1 Cor 2: 14 But the natural (Athiest/Homosexual/Nonbeliever) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them , because they are spiritually discerned.

Whatever happened to God is love?

It is love to exclude homosexuals from the kingdom of heaven. . . God loves us sooo much He will keep His promise to keep the kingdom heaven tares/homosexuals free . . . .

Matt 13: 24 Another parable he put forth to them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field: 25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26 But when the blade had sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 So the servants of the householder came and said to him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? how then hath it tares? 28 He said to them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said to him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

 

[shuamort]

I am not a disbeliever in christianity because I'm gay. I'm a disbeliever because I'm an atheist. I have no time for mythologies and superstitions. If you want 'em, fine. Keep 'em to your self and I'll keep my private life to myself and everyone can go on their merry ways.

 

[MikeyC]

You certainly can preach whatever you like, but pagans such as yourself (or Thomas Jefferson) are not entering the kindgom of heaven either .

So your debate has come down to you claiming I will not be allowed to enter a place that may, and probably doesn't exist? I'll admit I'm unsure of what the afterlife holds should it exist, but apparently you have a book that claims to know it firsthand... If your God won't accept people because of their sexuality or because being a "good person" isn't enough to have a good afterlife, I do not want to be a part of it. Especially when a Christian may go to heaven as long as they confess their sins and repent and accept Jesus? Seems awfully unreasonable to me, but I suppose being a Deist and not a Christian, going on faith and following others is is not my cup of tea. I prefer thinking for myself and using provable reason based on some sort of science which we human researched. Not what some "angel" or God told us (These stories are similar to UFO sightings reports). I believe in God/Creator, but I do not believe he interferes in our lives.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Oh the resident athiest "bible scholars" will glady post them for you . . .

1 Cor 2: 14 But the natural (Athiest/Homosexual/Nonbeliever) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them , because they are spiritually discerned.

"The things of the Spirit of God:" What are those?

It is love to exclude homosexuals from the kingdom of heaven. . . God loves us sooo much He will keep His promise to keep the kingdom heaven tares/homosexuals free . . . .

Can you find me a verse that says homosexuals aren't going to heaven? Especially this: Christians are not to practice pluralism or eqaulity to those excluded from the kingdom of heaven.

Matt 13: 24 Another parable he put forth to them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field: 25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26 But when the blade had sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 So the servants of the householder came and said to him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? how then hath it tares? 28 He said to them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said to him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

This would tell me that you should probably allow the homosexuals to do as the please now and then let God gather them up an burn them later if that's what he feels like doing.

Let both grow together until the harvest.

I find it disgusting that God would send someone to hell based solely on one choice(if that's even what it is) that they made.

Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Christ died for all of us. Even the sinning homosexual.

 

[Shamgar]

"The things of the Spirit of God:" What are those?

The very things I have been saying and what you have been rejecting . . .homosexuals
are not entering the kingdom of heaven.

Can you find me a verse that says homosexuals aren't going to heaven? Especially this: Christians are not to practice pluralism or eqaulity to those excluded from the kingdom of heaven.

Yes. Just as I did on my other thread.

This would tell me that you should probably allow the homosexuals to do as the please now and then let God gather them up an burn them later if that's what he feels like doing. Let both grow together until the harvest.

See a natural man would come to that conclusion.

I find it disgusting that God would send someone to hell based solely on one choice(if that's even what it is) that they made.

Oh but the choice to live out your lusts is naughty . . .

Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Christ died for all of us. Even the sinning homosexual.

That is why those who repent ( since they are no longer homosexuals) are spared being excluded from the kingdom . . .

1 Cor 6:9-11 Or do you not know that unjust ones will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be led astray, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous ones, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor plunderers shall inherit the kingdom of God. And some were these things, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.

So your debate has come down to you claiming I will not be allowed to enter a place that may, and probably doesn't exist? I'll admit I'm unsure of what the afterlife holds should it exist, but apparently you have a book that claims to know it firsthand... If your God won't accept people because of their sexuality or because being a "good person" isn't enough to have a good afterlife, I do not want to be a part of it.

Then don't presume to preach about something you have no desire to be part of nor to believe in . . .

I am not a disbeliever in christianity because I'm gay. I'm a disbeliever because I'm an atheist. I have no time for mythologies and superstitions. If you want 'em, fine. Keep 'em to your self and I'll keep my private life to myself and everyone can go on their merry ways.

Oh such a poor liar . . . you were using these "mythologies and superstitions" as a part of your defense . . .

Bad christian. Bad!
2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

No buffet for you. You have to go through the whole supper.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

The very things I have been saying and what you have been rejecting . . .homosexuals
are not entering the kingdom of heaven.

Admittance to heaven is a "thing(singular)." The text you posted had things(plural). And if you ask me "admittance to heaven doesn't fit well in place of "the things of the Spirit of God."

Yes. Just as I did on my other thread.

I apologize, but I can find no such thread. Where did you give a bible verse that said to treat non christians as unequals?

See a natural man would come to that conclusion.

I have said nothing about my own beliefs or religion. Do not presume you know either.

Oh but the choice to live out your lusts is naughty . . .

No one is devoid of sin or lust for that matter. We are sinners with our own sins and we all have a possibility of getting into heaven yes?

That is why those who repent ( since they are no longer homosexuals) are spared being excluded from the kingdom . . .

1 Cor 6:9-11 Or do you not know that unjust ones will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be led astray, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous ones, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor plunderers shall inherit the kingdom of God. And some were these things, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.

Faith in God does not make one a walking figure of Christ. Faith in God does not make one incapable of sin. I recall John 3:16 not having any prerequisites other than believing that Jesus was the son of God and accepting him as your lord and savior. Believing in Jesus and accepting him as your lord and savior is what "washes you."

 

[Shamgar]

Admittance to heaven is a "thing(singular)." The text you posted had things(plural). And if you ask me "admittance to heaven doesn't fit well in place of "the things of the Spirit of God."

Never asked you. . . .did I?

I apologize, but I can find no such thread. Where did you give a bible verse that said to treat non christians as unequals?

Shouldn't be hard to find since I have a limited number of threads.

I have said nothing about my own beliefs or religion. Do not presume you know either.

Oh but your fruits speak volumes. . . you promote Ghandi, pacifism, hippie movement . . . all non Christian teaching. . . . that non verbal communication gives people away each time.

No one is devoid of sin or lust for that matter. We are sinners with our own sins and we all have a possibility of getting into heaven yes?

there was only one righteous man that did not sin and that was jesus Christ . . . but see the righteous repent when they stumble the vessels for common use don't . . .

Romans 9: 22 But if God, desiring to show forth wrath, and to make His power known, endured in much long-suffering vessels of wrath having been fitted out for destruction, 23 and that He make known the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy which He before prepared for glory, 24 whom He also called, not only us, of Jews, but also out of nations.

Faith in God does not make one a walking figure of Christ. Faith in God does not make one incapable of sin. I recall John 3:16 not having any prerequisites other than believing that Jesus was the son of God and accepting him as your lord and savior. Believing in Jesus and accepting him as your lord and savior is what "washes you."

See the natural man preaching the word of God . . .stick to preaching Ghandi as you can understand that better.

Romans 1: 17 For in this is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The righteous shall live by faith.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Never asked you. . . .did I?

Ehh?

I asked you "What are the 'things of the Spirit of God." You said "the admittance to the kingdom of heaven(paraphrased)."

I pointed out that things(with an s on the end meaning more than one) would mean more than just one thing(the admittance to heaven). I then asked you to elaborate.

Could you do so?

Shouldn't be hard to find since I have a limited number of threads.

Shouldn't be hard for you to post a picture with a cartoon character and the verse in question. You seem to have many of those and a repetoire of verses on hand.

Oh but your fruits speak volumes. . . you promote Ghandi, pacifism, hippie movement . . . all non Christian teaching. . . . that non verbal communication gives people away each time.

My fruits? Dude, I'm not gay. :lol:. Whether you want to admit it or not Gandhi and Jesus would have been best friends, Jesus was a Pascifist, and he was definitely a hippy.

See the natural man preaching the word of God . . .stick to preaching Ghandi as you can understand that better.

Stick to the preachings of Jesus and maybe you'll be a better person. Maybe.

Romans 1: 17 For in this is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The righteous shall live by faith.

This means the righteous will try, it does not mean they will be devoid of sin or flaws or vices.

 

[Shamgar]

My fruits? Dude, I'm not gay. :lol:. Whether you want to admit it or not Gandhi and Jesus would have been best friends, Jesus was a Pascifist, and he was definitely a hippy.

Fruits=works . . .dude. Since you are such a "bible scholar" you should have known that. Of course that is your unsubstantiated claim . . . Funny Jesus was very militeristic here as He used a weapon here to drive home His point . . .

John 2: 13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, 14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; 16 And said to them that sold doves, Take these things away; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. 17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up.

Jesus didn't preach "free love" of the fornicators as He said they were excluded from the kingdom also . . . 1 Cor 6:9-11.

Stick to the preachings of Jesus and maybe you'll be a better person. Maybe.

I do . . . . you dont' since there is no imaginary pascifist /hippie Jesus . . .

Gal 1: 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so I say now again, If any man preacheth any other gospel to you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

1 Cor 11: 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him . {with him: or, with me}

This means the righteous will try, it does not mean they will be devoid of sin or flaws or vices.

It also means that the vessels for common use, such as yourself, don't have a chance.

 

[shuamort]

Then don't presume to preach about something you have no desire to be part of nor to believe in . . .

Preaching is different from teaching. Since you're obviously ignorant about what the bible says, I'm teaching it to you. If I were to believe in that large book of bullcrap, then I'd be preaching it. See the difference?

Oh such a poor liar . . . you were using these "mythologies and superstitions" as a part of your defense . . .

Nope, I was just using your own mythology against you since you don't know it well. So sorry. Go read the bible. Understand it. Absorb it. Then, before you attempt to proselytize and spread your hate, understand that it's not in there. Tsk tsk. For a christian, you sure are judgmental.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Fruits=works . . .dude. Since you are such a "bible scholar" you should have known that. Of course that is your unsubstantiated claim . . . Funny Jesus was very militeristic here as He used a weapon here to drive home His point . . .

I know what fruits are. I was joking. That's why there was a smiley face. Jesus was never militaristic.

John 2: 13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, 14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; 16 And said to them that sold doves, Take these things away; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. 17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up.

"Scourge of small cords." And it says he beat people with that... ohh wait, no it doesn't. For all you know he wrapped the chords around his head and asked them to leave. Or maybe he used the chords to get the animals out? As the Son of God throwing over a table would make most humans leave.

Jesus didn't preach "free love" of the fornicators as He said they were excluded from the kingdom also . . . 1 Cor 6:9-11.

The verse quoted here is not from the mouth of Jesus, it is from the mouth of a man.

I do . . . . you dont' since there is no imaginary pascifist /hippie Jesus . . .

Gal 1: 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so I say now again, If any man preacheth any other gospel to you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

I don't even have to look this up. Galations was written by Paul, after Jesus' death and resurection. Even if it did come straight from the mouth of Jesus, do you think we should "accurse(inflict evil upon)" all non-believers?

1 Cor 11: 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him . {with him: or, with me}

Umm... yeah... I looked this one up... As it turns out 1 Corinthians 11: 4 is:

4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame on his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered brings shame on her head. It is just as if her head were shaved.

6What if a woman does not cover her head? She should have her hair cut off. But it is shameful for her to cut her hair or shave it off. So she should cover her head.​

While I'm sure it was just a simple misspelling of your intended verse, I thought I'd just point that out. But your verse could not have come from Jesus either, because 1 Corinthians was written by Paul, after Jesus' death. And even more so the verse you posted didn't have violence in it.

You seem to be forgetting "Turn the other cheek" and "Love thyne enemy." These are not the teachings of a Militaristic Thug.

It also means that the vessels for common use, such as yourself, don't have a chance.

You say that with a certain amount of satisfaction. I would wonder why, but it's not like I don't already know the answer. Does it not bother you that God would send someone like me(who I can assure you is a genuinely good guy) to hell because I prayed to a different invisible man?