A series of videos of Baptist pastor Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona have gone viral as he talks about the solution of AIDS being the exterminations of all homosexuals and bisexual citizens. He explained that AIDS could be solved by Christmas with a simple holocaust for homosexuals. The videos are below.
Anderson takes off on this sermon to recognize “AIDS Awareness Day.” That led to his sermon entitled “AIDS: The Judgement of God” where he explains that Leviticus 20:13 compels the faithful to kill gay, lesbians, and bisexuals. He explains that, in his reading of the section, “I actually discovered the cure for AIDS.” Here is the thrust of his solution:
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.”
Anderson added
“And that, my friend, is the cure for AIDS. It was right there in the Bible all along — and they’re out spending billions of dollars in research and testing. It’s curable — right there. Because if you executed the homos like God recommends, you wouldn’t have all this AIDS running rampant.”
What is chilling that Anderson refers to how many kids are in the audience as he spews this hateful sermon, including teaching them that “all homos are pedophiles” and screaming “No homos will ever be allowed in this church as long as I am pastor here.”
Anderson previously attracted attention by explaining why women have to be entirely silent in church. Not even an amen:
If your stomach can take it, here is the full sermon:
I’ll buy Pastor Anderson a lobster dinner if he can explain how I’m wrong and he’s right.
LV 11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
LV 19:30 Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD.
= = =
Sabbath = Sundown Friday- sundown Saturday.
Sunday worship ISN’T a Sabbath day.
LV 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
= = =
Nice haircut there Mr. Anderson…
Yes it is Annie,
Maybe someday the world will be a safer place with Scott behind bars.
LV 20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.
= = =
Let the Salem Witch hunts commence?
Yes Max, saw that, good news!
@Max-1
I have given you the CDC link to the numbers. Here it is again. If I have left anything out, it is the women who will be infected by “bi-sexual” men.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/
I have given you the math, to wit:
Here is a picture of the number of gay men (588) who will be infected with the HIV virus by other gay men in one week. (Again, just pretend the females are crossdressers) This will occur week after week after week . . .
http://www.gkstill.com/_Media/600-3_med.png
Each of the above gay men will be forced to seek medical treatment for the rest of their lives. Some will be forced to go on disability throughout the course of the disease. Many will die early. Some will self-destruct, and kill themselves one way or another. Some will forgo intimate sexual relations the rest of their lives because they are now infected. Others will go on to infect others, because half of those with HIV do not know they have it, and will not even take the simple step of getting tested. Others will go on to infect others because they don’t give a hoot about anything except having a good time in bed. Who knows the financial cost to themselves, or the government? All of this so that their gay lover can have an orga$m.
Sooo, once again.. . .who really “hates” gay men? Is it the preachers, silly or otherwise, who preach that homosexuality is a sin, and bad for you? Or is it the gay men who infected the persons above???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/exposed-the-world-congress-of-families
HRC report exposes Scot Lively.
Annie,
I posted the First Circuit Court’s ruling from today, above.
Lively… DENIED.
Yep, I bet they don’t know.
Willful ignorance, at best.
Paul C. Schulte
Max-1 – you would be right not to trust my blood and you should have it tested for your own safety.
= = =
Again Paul, ALL BLOOD is tested.
We should all be thankful that all blood donated for transfusions is tested.
Yet, knowing this FACT, you support targeting gays. Unfounded targeting based on antiquated theories about the homo-sex-you-alls without understanding HOW this promulgates further stigmas AGAINST the LGBT community.
Paul, eg.
Above I told Karen my sexual history. Read about it. Then realized there are many, MANY more people like me than your phobia allows there to be. According to the homophobes here, ALL GAY MEN ARE HIV+ and “we need to fear (aka protect ourselves) from their decease.”
I can’t draw it any clearer than that. You are wrong, pogo is wrong, Squeeky is wrong, Karen is wrong. When the current system is screening EVRYONE’s blood, why the need to target a segment of society that the rules were put into place to guard against when there was no screening.
HELLO!!!
It’s the 21st Century now and Ronald Reagan finally did say AIDS.
Since then, I swear a large portion of America refused to grow with the rest of society. This may explain why the current GOP dogma has always referred to Ronnie as some HERO. Since the 1980’s, testing has come a long way…
… I wish the conservatives would just grow up or step aside.
Megan McCain is waiting in the wings!
Max-1 – tragically I am well aware of what HIV/AIDS can do to a person. I am reluctant to put my life at risk. Statistically, my risk is much higher with a gay active promiscuous male then one in a committed relationship, but less with a lesbian in a committed relationship. This has absolutely nothing to do with targeting homosexuals. It has to do with targeting promiscuous gay males who also are in the age group to most likely sell their blood, rather than donate.
I will agree that nothing is perfect, but my chances are better if the blood does not come from a male homosexual. Just as my chances are better in poker if I hold 4 aces than 4 treys.
http://freethinker.co.uk/images/uploads/2013/08/scott-lively.jpg
Max, I bet they still don’t know who this guy is.
Annie,
I’m glad Mr Turley has a blog that allows the homophobes a place to rear their ugly heads for all to see. I’m also thankful that Mr. Turley has a blog that allows gays to post counter arguments to the homophobes that arrive here to litter threads with their homophobia.
Ah, Freedom of speech.
Karen S
When I told you about my sexual history, a history that actually makes me a safer donor than someone who’s been married for as long…
… You instead doubled down with your unnatural fear of teh gay.
Figures.
Squeeky
Your truths… not necessarily the whole truth.
I’m glad Mr. Turley has a blog that allows the homophobes a place to rear their ugly heads for all to see.
@Max-1
It’s not homophobia. It’s just the frigging truth. Now, 29 hours after this thread began, at 29 hours x 3.5 gay infections per hour = 101.5 gay men have now been infected with HIV. Here’s what 100 people look like: (I couldn’t find a picture with all men in it, sooo just pretend the girls in the crowd are crossdressers or something.)
http://www.gkstill.com/_Media/100-3_med.png
Now, for purposes of my illustration, each of the “men” in the above picture were infected by a gay man with HIV. This is since yesterday at about 1:00PM. Half of the gay infectors did not know they were HIV positive, and didn’t care enough to get a blood test to find out. Even though they know they are in a high risk group. Some of the others who do know they are infected, simply do not take their meds, or wear a condom, or give a hoot one way or the other if they infect their “lover.” All of the gay infectors dit it so that they could achieve sexual pleasure by ejaculating into someone’s rear end.
Now, who is it who really “hates” gay men? Is it the preachers, silly or otherwise, who preach that homosexuality is a sin, and bad for you? Or is it the gay men who infected the persons above???
You are in denial.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The only possible argument for allowing high risk donors would have to be either:
1) The high risk statistic was in error, or
2) The assay is 100% accurate as soon as the blood and body fluids are infectious, which is impossible, because it relies on antibody levels
Neither of the above are true. I have explained how the false negatives in the assay require the screening of any and all high risk donors.
You have not explained how allowing high risk donors would not increase transfusion transmission, or if you believe that increase is justifiable, and if so, why. You have discussed how the ban is unfair, or stigmatizing, but the relevant point is the safety of the blood supply. Can you explain how to get around the problem of false negatives due to insufficient antibody levels, especially after initial exposure?
If you can explain to me how allowing high risk donors is no threat to the blood supply, then I will listen to what you have to say.
Max:
May I add that the extreme difficulty in even talking about the realities of the HIV plague makes it harder to eradicate it. And that goes for all orientations.
Happy:
Good luck on the championship!
Max:
“So you admit they test ALL blood yet hold stead fast on making the LGBT community the target of an oppressive Federal policy that furthers the stigma against gays, a stigma I might add, that you yourself have promulgated here.”
How so? It’s an undisputed fact that gay men are at high risk for HIV. So are IV drug users. This is not my opinion. It’s a fact. A fact I would really like to change. It is the duty of blood donation centers to screen out high risk donors, because their priority is safeguarding the blood supply. Do you deny the high HIV rate among gay men?
I completely understand that not every gay man engages in high risk behavior, and that the high rate of HIV among gay men stigmatizes them. But my remarking on those facts is neither bigoted nor stigmatizing. I actually do not know how to solve the problem that you, and many others, find the undisputed high rate of HIV among the gay community to be stigmatizing. Rather than ignoring that rate, or forcing blood donation centers to accept blood that has a statistically higher chance of a false negative, why don’t we focus our efforts on battling down that high rate?
I would rather have actual health in the community than falsely perceived health.
And, yes, I do know you were born that way, and you’re just fine.
You simply are ignoring the fact that although all blood is screened, screening is not 100% accurate in finding all true positives. Hence the restrictions.
It’s no more complicated than that.