D
Dr. Huk-N-Duck
Guest
David committed both adultery and murder, so maybe it’s not a stretch to believe that he was playing for both the offense and defense.
Today's society is so sexy crazed that the concept of love necessarily involves sex..
David and Jonathan were Jews and it's true that they had to have known about the Levitical punishment for same sex, sex. They also had to have known about the story of Sodom. While I do feel that it is probable that they loved one another more than most would love another man, I find it highly unlikely and in fact, I don't believe that in that era, they would have openly "married" one another. That's just wishful thinking on the part of this rabbi - I don't know if he's the same one that came up with 7 or 8 sexual orientations but nevertheless, I don't put any stock in this marriage idea.
.
.
As long as you’re speculating about what the Scriptures NEVER stated maybe you you would like to imply he was a child molestor too?David committed both adultery and murder, so maybe it’s not a stretch to believe that he was playing for both the offense and defense.
You’re being a little dramatic.As long as you’re speculating about what the Scriptures NEVER stated maybe you you would like to imply he was a child molestor too?
Then, after that wild pontification a case could be made for NAMBLA’s moral legitimacy?
David committed both adultery and murder, so maybe it’s not a stretch to believe that he was playing for both the offense and defense.
I’m guessing Acts 13:22 is why people are having a hissy fit about this. The man committed murder and adultery. I’m not sure why the prospect of him having a sexual relationship with a man makes him so unpalatable when we know he’s already guilty of murder…but whatever.Actually, it is a stretch. "David committed murder and adultery in pursuit of a woman, so it's plausible he was bisexual" is a textbook non sequitur.
’m not sure why the prospect of him having a sexual relationship with a man makes him so unpalatable when we know he’s already guilty of murder…but whatever.
I would argue that he is an apostate who does have as much right to post her as the admins give him. I don’t mind his drivel since this place has been a repository for drivel from posters like him for all the years I’ve been here.Smilin is a Christian who has turned into a reprobate with a hardened heart against God, but he still has the right to post here if he’s following the forum rules. I swear some people on here ought to just purchase their own forum and post sanctimonious drivel back and forth to himself.
It is poor biblical exegesis and fallacious logic. The other day you said you wanted the preacher to only give you things that were explicitly true. How would you like it if your preacher used the kind of logic and pretzel-twisting that you are using here for a sermon?You’re being a little dramatic.
I said, according to the Bible, he’s a murderer and adulterer. Based on those two items alone, why is it a stretch to think he’s not guilty of other significant sins? In my mind, a homosexual relationship is far less egregious than MURDER!
I don’t really feel the “need” to prove anything. It wasn’t my theory or even topic thread to begin with. I’m just saying if a guy’s capable of adultery and murder, I wouldn’t put anything past him. At the end of the day, no one knows for sure either way.Because there's an awful lot of work between "He committed murder" and "therefore, he was gay" that you haven't shown. Your logic is nonexistent. Simple as that.
If the preacher said “this is a theory,” I’d be fine with it. If he said it’s factual, I’d be unhappy. It seems the rabbi or preacher or whoever it was that Smellin posted, was signaling it as theoretical. I understand people are losing their minds because David was called a “man after God’s heart,” but he also did some very wicked deeds.It is poor biblical exegesis and fallacious logic. The other day you said you wanted the preacher to only give you things that were explicitly true. How would you like it if your preacher used the kind of logic and pretzel-twisting that you are using here for a sermon?
Lol, if he was having sex with Jonathan, then it WAS adultery, you dolt.People don't seem to have a problem with the fact that David was a murderer or adulterer or schemer
You are right. I may have come across a bit harshly. I don't think SC should be banished from the FFF because of the drivel he posts (unless he starts posting nude pictures of himselfDon’t the people complaining about him have the same right to post their thoughts and opinions as he does? At least until you purchase your own form and invite us to post our drivel there?
Lol, if he was having sex with Jonathan, then it WAS adultery, you dolt.
People don't seem to have a problem with the fact that David was a murderer or adulterer or schemer but that he possibly had a romantic relationship with another man: HADES no!