Dunkin' Donuts makes good coffee. They don’t attempt to undermine God’s word do they?

Homosexuality is: forbidden (Lev. 18:22), considered an abomination (1 Kin. 14:24), punishment for (Lev. 20:13), unclean (Rom. 1:24, 26, 27).

Response to comment [from a Jew]: "Bob Enyart is a bigoted homophopbic slimeball ..."

Pastor Enyart stands for God's word. 

Response to comment [from an atheist]: "Yes, they do: they hire and do business with homosexuals and non-Christians."

Mmm

"That's because Angel4Truth responded to a post I'd made as a shot at serpentdove. The discussion proceeded from there.  [A]CW, on the other hand, claimed I was defending "buggerites", which I wasn't doing.  Get a little perspective."

Starbucks stands against God's Word. We stand against them.

Response to comment [from other]: [Re: ACW] "That's what he does, Gerald..."

I don't think Gerald needs your Cheese Puff defense.

Gerald thinks we need to know the purpose of business and he's right--businesses exist to make a profit. They are amoral. But when Starbucks executives gather in a room and make the decision to stand for what God stands against, we have a problem. Christians will vote with their dollar. They will refrain from purchasing their over-priced, coffee.

Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "The reason so many businesses are going out of their way to assure homosexuals that they don't discriminate is that it pays to do it. There is a larger backlash against not taking a stand than against taking a stand.

Bluntly put, there are more homosexuals (and people who have friends or relatives who are homosexual) than there are homophobes.

Nothing personal, it's just bidness, as they say in Texas."

Christians are rare gems (Ex 23:2, Mt 7:14).

...And you're a meathead.

See:

Barbarian

Response to comment [from other]: [I don't think Gerald needs your Cheese Puff defense.] "Nor does alaCarteWarrior need yours."

I did not defend him.  He is doing fine on his own.  He provided context which you ignored.

"I was not defending Gerald. He was doing fine on his own. He ask[ed] for evidence and was shown none..."

Sounds like you are defending him.

"Sounds likes you are defending aCW. Either we both are or neither of us are. Which is it?"

SD: "I don't think Gerald needs your Cheese Puff defense."

Cheese Wiz: "Nor does alaCarteWarrior need yours."

SD: "I did not defend him..."

[My first defense of ACW occurs here]

"...He is doing fine on his own. He provided context which you ignored."

"How can I be defending Gerald in a comment to Gerald?"

By stating: "That's what he does, Gerald...", as if you two are pals.

I can't speak for Geraldbug-- maybe you are pals-- but if you cozied up to me that way--I'd want to distance myself from your cheesiness. Even bugs get the heebie jeebies.

"...I was offering my opinion on (the lack of) aCW's character."

[Quoting me] ""I did not defend him. My first defense of him occurs here."  Sometimes I actually hope you are just trolling."
 

I had not defended ACW until the second sentence of post 83.

"Are you defending your defense of him?"

I am refuting your statement:

"Sounds likes you are defending aCW. Either we both are or neither of us are. Which is it?

Intensional

"I had not defended ACW."

SD: I don't think Gerald needs your Cheese Puff defense.

Cheese Wiz: "Nor does alaCarteWarrior need yours."

Charles Miner: No, it is not.

Michael Scott: No, it is not.

Charles Miner: Okay, so we're on the same page, great.

Michael Scott: Okay, so we're on the same page, great.

Charles Miner: Okay, Michael.

Michael Scott: Okay, Michael.

Charles Miner: No, seriously.

Michael Scott: No, seriously.

Charles Miner: How old are you?

Michael Scott: How old are you?

Pam Beesly: I can tell Michael's mood by which comedy routine he chooses to do. The more infantile the more upset he is. And he just skipped the Ace Ventura talking butt thing. He never skips it. This is bad. ~ The Office

[Michael mocks Charles vid.] "Stop being such a noob and learn how to post YouTube....gosh"

Stop using the fallacious argument of intensional.  

"Can we drop this nonsense now?"

My comments are normal. Yours are nonsense.

[ Intensional fallacy] "Argument of the intensional? Speaking of nonsense. You're (unintentionally) hilarious..."

It is not a spelling error.

"Please explain how I have made an intensional fallacy.....Can't wait."

See:

Armageddon: What? Where? When? By J. Vernon McGee

Response to comment [from an atheist]: "You watch South Park? Seriously?"

I'm familiar with it.

Response to comment [from an atheist]: "There's a way to deal with "the sodomite movement" quickly and easily..."

Do you like God's urban renewal plan? Gen. 19:1–29; Deut. 29:23; Isa. 13:19; Jer. 49:18: 50:40; Lam. 4:6; Amos 4:11; Zeph. 2:9; Matt. 10:15; Luke 17:29; Rom. 9:29; 2 Pet. 2:6.

"Can I actually participate in the slaughter?"

You're on the wrong side (2 Chr. 36:16, 17). We are your entertainment, remember?

Response to comment [from a Christian]: [Gerald banned ] "You're an amateur when it comes to mockery Gerald."

We're not supposed to roll around in the mud with pigs (Mt 7:6; 2 Pe 2:22).  Gerald I am not calling you a pig.

"Yes sd, calling a pervert a pig would be degrading to the Suidae sus species."

You might be right.

As far as this back and forth stuff of late.  I think you know Gerald is a heterosexual and I think he knows you are a heterosexual. 

Response to comment [from an atheist]: [Gerald I am not calling you a pig.] "What's stopping you?"

Perhaps I should be more specific. I wouldn't call you that.  The gentle Jesus would (Mt 7:6).  So would the apostle Peter under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Pe 2:22).  This is how the Bible describes the wicked. 

[Calling a pig] "Jesus and Peter would, but you won't.  I'm not sure whether to be relieved or disappointed."

You are responsible for the truth that you've heard (Jn 9:39–41, 15:22, 24, Mt 11:20–24). If you choose to be a pig, you'll be a pig (Jn 8:34-35). If you choose to live, you'll live (Jn 8:36). When we start name calling, a Christian can't win in these types of battles (Jud 1:9). It's not our specialty.

Response to comment [from a pagan]: "...[W]hy is it that the Christian Right seem to be the first to offer their favorite names?"

You're projecting again.



See:

Tactics of the Left

Response to comment [from an atheist]: [Saving people] "Last time I checked, that was supposed to be Jesus' job, not yours."

Gerald admits that Jesus does exists and he is doing something (2 Sam. 23:3, 4; Isa. 42:6, 7; Isa. 61:1–3; Dan. 9:24, 27; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 13:1; Mal. 3:2, 3; Matt. 1:21; Matt. 3:11, 12; Matt. 4:23; Matt. 5:17; Matt. 9:13 Luke 5:30–32. Matt. 10:34–36 Luke 12:49–53; Mic. 7:6. Matt. 15:24; Matt. 18:11 [Luke 19:10.] Matt. 18:12–14 Luke 15:3–7. Matt. 20:28 Mark 10:45. Mark 1:38 Luke 4:43. Mark 2:15–22; Luke 1:78, 79; Luke 2:30–32, 34, 35, 38; Luke 4:18, 19, 43; Luke 8:1; Luke 9:56; Luke 12:49–53; Luke 24:26, 46, 47; John 3:13–17; John 4:34; John 6:51; John 8:12; John 9:39; John 10:10; John 11:50–52; John 12:27, 46, 47; John 18:37; Acts 5:31; Acts 10:43; Acts 26:23; Rom. 4:25; Rom. 5:6–8; Rom. 8:3, 4; Rom. 10:4; Rom. 14:9, 15; Rom. 15:8, 9; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15; Gal. 1:3, 4; Gal. 4:4, 5; Eph. 4:10; 1 Tim. 1:15; Heb. 2:9, 14, 15, 18; Heb. 9:26; 1 John 3:5, 8; 1 John 4:10).

Response to comment [from an atheist]: [ACW quote: With all of the evidence that's been presented in this thread Rusha, you'd think that you'd be compassionate towards your friends and possible family members that partake in the promiscuous, disease ridden, deadly homosexual lifestyle and try to show them a better way.] "Or one could just let them die off, thus allowing the problem to solve itself."

Is ACW more loving than you by sharing the truth with others?  

Bob Enyart dumps Starbucks