Transgender boy wins girls state wrestling title

[LongGone]

Goner: I didn't say that you hadn't grown I was making the point that I could say it based on what I see here on the forum. You really are the one missing the irony. You don't even know that SC rebelled against Hammond. He may have come to the same conclusions without ever being in Hammond. Linda may have wound up with the same beliefs with or without Hammond. Goes back to there are plenty of Liberty students who have gone in similar directions as SC and Linda and how can you or I know if it was their experience at Liberty or where they would gone anyhow?

And you only know me from the Forum, and there have been many times I have stated that I treat the FFF like the mafia bosses treat their activities...."it's not personal, it's just (fff) business". The irony is that you offer a backhanded personal insult to me as you rebuke me for the same offense. Irony or hypocrisy? I only have an opinion....

As to Liberty causing students to become apostates, I'm not aware of any personally. In my personal experience with Liberty (since the 70's) I don't recall anyone being bitter over their Liberty experience. I'm sure there must be some, though. On the other hand, I have no personal experience with Hammond yet I'm know personally many who are resentful of their Hammond experience....most, not all, are on the fff. Smellin is the fff poster boy for that....IN MY OPINION!

Tarheel...you really aren't this thick. I gave you the backhanded insult to show you have "stupid" it is to determine from posts of people you don't know what has driven their conclusions. I don't know you but it is obvious rather than having the ability to discuss SC's conclusions with him you voice your "opinion" that the reason he believes the way he does is that he has rebelled against Hammond. It would be just as ignorant to say that the only reason you believe the way you do is that you went to Liberty.

I know only a handful of people that went to Liberty (granted different experience than HAC) but I think of my wife's trainer who you would consider very apostate and has strong feelings about how a Christian University could be so harsh to gay people. Do you keep a small circle of friends? 8)

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Goner: I didn't say that you hadn't grown I was making the point that I could say it based on what I see here on the forum. You really are the one missing the irony. You don't even know that SC rebelled against Hammond. He may have come to the same conclusions without ever being in Hammond. Linda may have wound up with the same beliefs with or without Hammond. Goes back to there are plenty of Liberty students who have gone in similar directions as SC and Linda and how can you or I know if it was their experience at Liberty or where they would gone anyhow?

And you only know me from the Forum, and there have been many times I have stated that I treat the FFF like the mafia bosses treat their activities...."it's not personal, it's just (fff) business". The irony is that you offer a backhanded personal insult to me as you rebuke me for the same offense. Irony or hypocrisy? I only have an opinion....

As to Liberty causing students to become apostates, I'm not aware of any personally. In my personal experience with Liberty (since the 70's) I don't recall anyone being bitter over their Liberty experience. I'm sure there must be some, though. On the other hand, I have no personal experience with Hammond yet I'm know personally many who are resentful of their Hammond experience....most, not all, are on the fff. Smellin is the fff poster boy for that....IN MY OPINION!

Tarheel...you really aren't this thick. I gave you the backhanded insult to show you have "stupid" it is to determine from posts of people you don't know what has driven their conclusions. I don't know you but it is obvious rather than having the ability to discuss SC's conclusions with him you voice your "opinion" that the reason he believes the way he does is that he has rebelled against Hammond. It would be just as ignorant to say that the only reason you believe the way you do is that you went to Liberty.

I know only a handful of people that went to Liberty (granted different experience than HAC) but I think of my wife's trainer who you would consider very apostate and has strong feelings about how a Christian University could be so harsh to gay people. Do you keep a small circle of friends? 8)

For you to call me, or anyone thick is once again ironic!!
You know one LU grad so your conclusions must be true!
And your one LU grad would probably think Scripture is so harsh as well!

And I absolutely positively believe that Smellin's Hammond experience plays a major role in his apostasy. And I've already told you why I don't respond to his apostate beliefs by countering with what has been orthodox Christian beliefs since the first century. Speaking of being thick....

 

[LongGone]

Goner: I didn't say that you hadn't grown I was making the point that I could say it based on what I see here on the forum. You really are the one missing the irony. You don't even know that SC rebelled against Hammond. He may have come to the same conclusions without ever being in Hammond. Linda may have wound up with the same beliefs with or without Hammond. Goes back to there are plenty of Liberty students who have gone in similar directions as SC and Linda and how can you or I know if it was their experience at Liberty or where they would gone anyhow?

And you only know me from the Forum, and there have been many times I have stated that I treat the FFF like the mafia bosses treat their activities...."it's not personal, it's just (fff) business". The irony is that you offer a backhanded personal insult to me as you rebuke me for the same offense. Irony or hypocrisy? I only have an opinion....

As to Liberty causing students to become apostates, I'm not aware of any personally. In my personal experience with Liberty (since the 70's) I don't recall anyone being bitter over their Liberty experience. I'm sure there must be some, though. On the other hand, I have no personal experience with Hammond yet I'm know personally many who are resentful of their Hammond experience....most, not all, are on the fff. Smellin is the fff poster boy for that....IN MY OPINION!

Tarheel...you really aren't this thick. I gave you the backhanded insult to show you have "stupid" it is to determine from posts of people you don't know what has driven their conclusions. I don't know you but it is obvious rather than having the ability to discuss SC's conclusions with him you voice your "opinion" that the reason he believes the way he does is that he has rebelled against Hammond. It would be just as ignorant to say that the only reason you believe the way you do is that you went to Liberty.

I know only a handful of people that went to Liberty (granted different experience than HAC) but I think of my wife's trainer who you would consider very apostate and has strong feelings about how a Christian University could be so harsh to gay people. Do you keep a small circle of friends? 8)

For you to call me, or anyone thick is once again ironic!!
You know one LU grad so your conclusions must be true!
And your one LU grad would probably think Scripture is so harsh as well!

And I absolutely positively believe that Smellin's Hammond experience plays a major role in his apostasy. And I've already told you why I don't respond to his apostate beliefs by countering with what has been orthodox Christian beliefs since the first century. Speaking of being thick....

Face it Tarheel...you focus on SC's Hammond experience because you either aren't smart enough or don't want to put forth the effort to properly engage. If you don't want to respond to his apostate beliefs just don't respond. There is no reason to attack his life experience.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Goner: I didn't say that you hadn't grown I was making the point that I could say it based on what I see here on the forum. You really are the one missing the irony. You don't even know that SC rebelled against Hammond. He may have come to the same conclusions without ever being in Hammond. Linda may have wound up with the same beliefs with or without Hammond. Goes back to there are plenty of Liberty students who have gone in similar directions as SC and Linda and how can you or I know if it was their experience at Liberty or where they would gone anyhow?

And you only know me from the Forum, and there have been many times I have stated that I treat the FFF like the mafia bosses treat their activities...."it's not personal, it's just (fff) business". The irony is that you offer a backhanded personal insult to me as you rebuke me for the same offense. Irony or hypocrisy? I only have an opinion....

As to Liberty causing students to become apostates, I'm not aware of any personally. In my personal experience with Liberty (since the 70's) I don't recall anyone being bitter over their Liberty experience. I'm sure there must be some, though. On the other hand, I have no personal experience with Hammond yet I'm know personally many who are resentful of their Hammond experience....most, not all, are on the fff. Smellin is the fff poster boy for that....IN MY OPINION!

Tarheel...you really aren't this thick. I gave you the backhanded insult to show you have "stupid" it is to determine from posts of people you don't know what has driven their conclusions. I don't know you but it is obvious rather than having the ability to discuss SC's conclusions with him you voice your "opinion" that the reason he believes the way he does is that he has rebelled against Hammond. It would be just as ignorant to say that the only reason you believe the way you do is that you went to Liberty.

I know only a handful of people that went to Liberty (granted different experience than HAC) but I think of my wife's trainer who you would consider very apostate and has strong feelings about how a Christian University could be so harsh to gay people. Do you keep a small circle of friends? 8)

For you to call me, or anyone thick is once again ironic!!
You know one LU grad so your conclusions must be true!
And your one LU grad would probably think Scripture is so harsh as well!

And I absolutely positively believe that Smellin's Hammond experience plays a major role in his apostasy. And I've already told you why I don't respond to his apostate beliefs by countering with what has been orthodox Christian beliefs since the first century. Speaking of being thick....

Face it Tarheel...you focus on SC's Hammond experience because you either aren't smart enough or don't want to put forth the effort to properly engage. If you don't want to respond to his apostate beliefs just don't respond. There is no reason to attack his life experience.

If you feel it's so important why not respond to his apostasy yourself Goner?
Pssst...it's just repeating the fundamentals of The Faith once delivered to the saints. And, Smellin already knows what they are...see the definition of apostate.

And, Hammond did and does help shape his move to apostasy (IMO, of course).
(Doesn't route_70 have a Hyles connection as well? Merely a coincidence, I'm sure. )
Now, whether or not that 'attacks his life experience' only Goner knows. But liberal socialist democrats do love to identify new classes of 'victims' 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Here is the source for the drivel thou believest:
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Jude.html

Scripture doesn't say what it says. Scripture (a multitude of OT And NT passages aside) really says what Smellin and the "Gay christians" tell you it says.

Thanks for citing yet another source that contradicts what you believe. I had not looked through that website but thanks. I do read from Christian gay sources such as Matthew Vines (God and the Gay Christian),  Mark Sandlin, Eliel-Cruz Lopez, Emmy Kegler, etc. I disagree with a lot of their material, but I do evaluate their viewpoints.

So why do you disagree with MacArthur on Jude 6-7?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

SC, let me ask you. Do you know of any historical writers(from orthodoxy) who believed whatnyou are espousing?

What makes orthodoxy correct? Did not the Pharisees of the NT embrace orthodoxy?

Because we have the Words of God and I know you reject most of it, but even from OT onwards, where is it then? Can you even show one? If you or Matthew Vines or Graham Coddrington could just show one verse where Christ or the disciples gave approval for it, please show it?

Where did Jesus give approval to have baptism services in buildings of worship? Where did He promote P&W music? Where did He teach about inviting people to church? Silence on the matter does not negate its acceptance or rejection.

I ask you, if Jesus was ok with it, why did he destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?

First of all, Jesus did NOT destroy Sodom and Gomorah, God did. Second, there is no mention of consensual gay sex for its destruction. Genesis 18-19 says it would be destroyed "...because their sin is very grievous." In fact, they would have been spared if there were ten righteous people in Sodom, so in essence, there were not enough righteous citizens. Isaiah said their sin was shameless but again does not identify that sin as consensual homosexuality. Jeremiah called them out on their adultery and lies, again leaving out consensual homosexuality. Ezekiel said about them "(Sodom is)...arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me." Again, no mention. Jesus again referred to lack of grace when it came to Sodom, falling in line with Ezekiel's mention. "And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town." Jude says they were destroyed for their fornication and desire to rape angelic beings. Not a single one of these passages (nor any other) mentions their destruction was related to men having consensual sex with men or women having consensual sex with women.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Pssst...it's just repeating the fundamentals of The Faith once delivered to the saintswhite, heterosexual males several hundred years after the Bible was penned.

There. Fixed it for ya. This is what the detailed description of Evangelical orthodoxy.

 

[FSSL]

There. Fixed it for ya. This is what the detailed description of Evangelical orthodoxy.

#OrthodoxLivesMatter

 

[LongGone]

If you feel it's so important why not respond to his apostasy yourself Goner?
Pssst...it's just repeating the fundamentals of The Faith once delivered to the saints. And, Smellin already knows what they are...see the definition of apostate.

And, Hammond did and does help shape his move to apostasy (IMO, of course).
(Doesn't route_70 have a Hyles connection as well? Merely a coincidence, I'm sure. )
Now, whether or not that 'attacks his life experience' only Goner knows. But liberal socialist democrats do love to identify new classes of 'victims' 


I do not care about what SC believes. You are the one that responds to his posts but rather than engaging in reasonable debate you choose to attack his "time in Hammond". That this is the best argument that a Baptist Preacher can muster is amusing. Even more amusing is that you liken you self to a Mafia Boss. Based on your "powerful" arguments you might last ten minutes before you were swimming with the fishes ;D

Just repeating the fundamentals of the faith is not having reasonable debate.  It is what one does when a person can't make an argument.

Surprising...a number of people on here have a "Hyles Connection". So surprising that on a forum that started as jack.hyles.net that there are people that have a "Hyles Connection"

I am not the one who makes these decisions. Tarheel Baptist has anointed himself as the person who decides if your "Hyles Connection" causes you to you to have your current theological persuasion 8)

I never thought of Tarheel Baptist as a "liberal socialist democrat" but he has created people with a "Hyles Connection" to be a new class of victim

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

If you feel it's so important why not respond to his apostasy yourself Goner?
Pssst...it's just repeating the fundamentals of The Faith once delivered to the saints. And, Smellin already knows what they are...see the definition of apostate.

And, Hammond did and does help shape his move to apostasy (IMO, of course).
(Doesn't route_70 have a Hyles connection as well? Merely a coincidence, I'm sure. )
Now, whether or not that 'attacks his life experience' only Goner knows. But liberal socialist democrats do love to identify new classes of 'victims' 


I do not care about what SC believes. You are the one that responds to his posts but rather than engaging in reasonable debate you choose to attack his "time in Hammond". That this is the best argument that a Baptist Preacher can muster is amusing. Even more amusing is that you liken you self to a Mafia Boss. Based on your "powerful" arguments you might last ten minutes before you were swimming with the fishes ;D

Just repeating the fundamentals of the faith is not having reasonable debate.  It is what one does when a person can't make an argument.

Surprising...a number of people on here have a "Hyles Connection". So surprising that on a forum that started as jack.hyles.net that there are people that have a "Hyles Connection"

I am not the one who makes these decisions. Tarheel Baptist has anointed himself as the person who decides if your "Hyles Connection" causes you to you to have your current theological persuasion 8)

I never thought of Tarheel Baptist as a "liberal socialist democrat" but he has created people with a "Hyles Connection" to be a new class of victim

Goner...the forums substantative socialist liberal democrat apologist WITH a Hyles connection.

 

[Recovering IFB]

Thanks for citing yet another source that contradicts what you believe. I had not looked through that website but thanks. I do read from Christian gay sources such as Matthew Vines (God and the Gay Christian),  Mark Sandlin, Eliel-Cruz Lopez, Emmy Kegler, etc. I disagree with a lot of their material, but I do evaluate their viewpoints.

So why do you disagree with MacArthur on Jude 6-7?

so, if you don't agree with people on every point, it would follow that we don't agree with every author on every point also?
as for Jude and strange flesh, did Hammond teach you about "hyperbole"? many writer of the Text used many different writing styles and God used that as preservation of His Word. What else could strange flesh mean in the situation that the text is talking about?

Where did Jesus give approval to have baptism services in buildings of worship? Where did He promote P&W music? Where did He teach about inviting people to church? Silence on the matter does not negate its acceptance or rejection.

True, buuuut NT Scripture is wriutten on the imlication that tghe OT Laws are still in effect, until latter revelation is revealed, like dietary laws lifted in Acts, temple worship laws lifted in Hebrews,,,,,,
you have to show where Christ or other NT writers gave the nod to homosexual acts....

First of all, Jesus did NOT destroy Sodom and Gomorah, God did. Second, there is no mention of consensual gay sex for its destruction. Genesis 18-19 says it would be destroyed "...because their sin is very grievous." In fact, they would have been spared if there were ten righteous people in Sodom, so in essence, there were not enough righteous citizens. Isaiah said their sin was shameless but again does not identify that sin as consensual homosexuality. Jeremiah called them out on their adultery and lies, again leaving out consensual homosexuality. Ezekiel said about them "(Sodom is)...arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me."

Even you haven't rejected the Trinity yet,have you? I also refer you to Jude again and that strange flesh...and please keepo reading in Ezekiel, please EZ 16:51 But Samaria did not commit even half your sins. You have multiplied your detestable practices beyond theirs and made your sisters appear righteous by all the detestable acts you have committed. 52 You must also bear your disgrace, since you have helped your sisters out.[k] For they appear more righteous than you because of your sins, which you committed more detestably than they did. So you also, be ashamed and bear your disgrace, since you have made your sisters appear righteous.

Ag

ain, no mention. Jesus again referred to lack of grace when it came to Sodom, falling in line with Ezekiel's mention. "And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town." Jude says they were destroyed for their fornication and desire to rape angelic beings. Not a single one of these passages (nor any other) mentions their destruction was related to men having consensual sex with men or women having consensual sex with women.

Please read the verses provided above with the comments earlier I provided, The writers of Scripture didnt have to go into every  decrepit detail, it is well known through the text and throughout the writer of through history( which you havent provided with me with one source yet) that homosexuality is sinful...as Paul wrote...
1 Cor 6:9  Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Such were some of you....

 

[Smellin Coffee]

so, if you don't agree with people on every point, it would follow that we don't agree with every author on every point also?

Precisely. Including the Bible.

as for Jude and strange flesh, did Hammond teach you about "hyperbole"? many writer of the Text used many different writing styles and God used that as preservation of His Word. What else could strange flesh mean in the situation that the text is talking about?

Even Reformed MacArthur refers to it as being sex with angels. Jude isn't talking about homosexuality in its context; it is talking about the relationship between men and angels. God will destroy the angels that took after strange flesh (humans) in the same manner He will destroy the humans of Sodom who wanted sex with strange flesh (angels). More than likely, the context is referring to Nephlim behavior.

True, buuuut NT Scripture is wriutten on the imlication that tghe OT Laws are still in effect, until latter revelation is revealed, like dietary laws lifted in Acts, temple worship laws lifted in Hebrews,,,,,,
you have to show where Christ or other NT writers gave the nod to homosexual acts.... 

You have to show where Christ gave the nod to eating pork, shellfish, allowing mixed clothing and disestablishing the law of Sabbath and the sacrificial system of worship. Other NT writers had no such authority. But we do see where Jesus approached the topic of capital punishment and revenge in regards to lifting of those restrictions, as well as the purity laws. If you choose to believe outside revelation, take heed of James and avoid wearing clothing made of mixed material. It is the same violation of God's Law as is homosexual activity. "For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person ... If someone obeys all of God's laws except one, that person is guilty of breaking all of them."

Even you haven't rejected the Trinity yet,have you?

Jesus is the Son of God and yet did not know all the things of God and did not even want God's will to come to pass. On top of that, He never taught He was deity. Divine, yes, deity, no.

I also refer you to Jude again and that strange flesh...and please keepo reading in Ezekiel, please EZ 16:51 But Samaria did not commit even half your sins. You have multiplied your detestable practices beyond theirs and made your sisters appear righteous by all the detestable acts you have committed. 52 You must also bear your disgrace, since you have helped your sisters out.[k] For they appear more righteous than you because of your sins, which you committed more detestably than they did. So you also, be ashamed and bear your disgrace, since you have made your sisters appear righteous.

Two points. First, no mention of consensual homosexual sex. "Detestable acts" could have been sex with angels, sex with children, rape, incest etc. Second point is this: this PROVES Sodom was not destroyed for homosexuality. If Israel were committing "more detestable" acts, they were more blatant in homosexual activity than Sodom. Samaria was also spared. Remember, God promised to spare Sodom if He found only ten righteous people. Consensual homosexual sex was not the biblical reason God destroyed the city.

  Please read the verses provided above with the comments earlier I provided, The writers of Scripture didnt have to go into every  decrepit detail, it is well known through the text and throughout the writer of through history( which you havent provided with me with one source yet)...

Wait, what about Sola Scriptura? Where the text is silent, why do you have to add to it by adding detail that is not mentioned in the passage? Why are you looking for "sources of truth" outside of the Scriptures themselves?

...that homosexuality is sinful...as Paul wrote...
1 Cor 6:9  Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Such were some of you....

Since Paul was not a proven, legitimate Apostle appointed by Jesus, his words don't carry much weight. Not saying he is wrong about stuff, but his words certainly need to be evaluated in the light of what Jesus taught.

That being said, you have two passages (I Cor. 6 & I Tim 1), where a "would-be" apostle who was rejected by churches (even the church at Ephesus) throws the term "homosexuality" in a list of things to be condemned, it should be taken a little lightly. Besides, in one of those lists, Paul mentions "greedy" and the other he mentions "lying". Why are you focusing on the idea of homosexuality rather than those two things, which are much more prevalent IN THE CHURCH AND OUR COUNTRY than homosexuality? Why are you judging those outside the church instead of dealing with issues inside the church? Or don't these words of Paul carry as much weight as the words used to promote homophobia? Are you not to judge those inside? ... Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? ... What business of mine is it to judge those outside the church?

 

[FSSL]

Smellin...  read your Bible and not things you imagine it should say. Perhaps you are having trouble with the KJV's word "know."

These men were homosexuals. You know... men who wanted to lie down with other men which the Bible said was a wicked act.

KJV: But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.


Perhaps the NIV can straighten you out (pun intended

NIV: Ge 19.4-5: Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodoms?both young and old?surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, ?Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.

 

[Ransom]

Since Paul was not a proven, legitimate Apostle appointed by Jesus, his words don't carry much weight.

By which you mean, don't carry much weight with you. But since your words don't actually carry much weight, whatever.

 

[Twisted]

Since Paul was not a proven, legitimate Apostle appointed by Jesus, his words don't carry much weight.

By which you mean, don't carry much weight with you. But since your words don't actually carry much weight, whatever.

Ouch!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Since Paul was not a proven, legitimate Apostle appointed by Jesus, his words don't carry much weight.

By which you mean, don't carry much weight with you. But since your words don't actually carry much weight, whatever.

Goner isn't going to like that non substantive post.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Since Paul was not a proven, legitimate Apostle appointed by Jesus, his words don't carry much weight.

By which you mean, don't carry much weight with you. But since your words don't actually carry much weight, whatever.

Ouch!

Actually, he's right. Intentional burn or not, I agree with it. I equate my opinion as equally valid as Paul's as yours, as Ransom's, as Trump's, as...

Test the opinion. If it works for you, great. If not, I have studied enough to know what I believe about it so that is what I have to answer to God for.

I'm not the source of truth and neither is any particular hermeneutic.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Smellin...  read your Bible and not things you imagine it should say. Perhaps you are having trouble with the KJV's word "know."

These men were homosexuals. You know... men who wanted to lie down with other men which the Bible said was a wicked act.

KJV: But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.


Perhaps the NIV can straighten you out (pun intended

NIV: Ge 19.4-5: Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodoms?both young and old?surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, ?Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.

And what part of consensuality were the men expecting of the visitors?

 

[FSSL]

And what part of consensuality were the men expecting of the visitors?

... and this is where FSSL must begin requiring a literacy test of those who join the forum. Reading and comprehension of the Bible should at least be a minimal requirement.

Let me ask you, "What part of men saying "so that we can have sex with them[men]" do you not understand as being homosexual?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

And what part of consensuality were the men expecting of the visitors?

... and this is where FSSL must begin requiring a literacy test of those who join the forum. Reading and comprehension of the Bible should at least be a minimal requirement.

Let me ask you, "What part of men saying "so that we can have sex with them[men]" do you not understand as being homosexual?

Scripture, Old and New Testament, clearly teaches that Sodomy is a sexual sin...perversion, as we all know.
Smellin also knows what those passages say and what they mean...but he rejects that plain expression. Because it offends his belief system. So, Smellin chooses to try to hold own to his own personal canon of positive reinforcement..I dont know why it makes a difference to him. He has, for all practical purposes, rejected Christ and is a heretic.

IMO, Goner!