Transgender boy wins girls state wrestling title

[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

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

Tarheel...the forum's non-substantial conservative making democrats look good WITH a Liberty connection

 

[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.

Tarheel...the forum's non-substantial conservative making democrats look good WITH a Liberty connection

Considering the 'substance' of liberal idiocy, I shall wear that with a badge of honor....

 

[Recovering IFB]

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.

And that's why you have fallen into apostasy.........

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.

And again, you contradicted what you wrote earlier about who you read......For your information, Johnny Mac is not one I look to for anything. He privately went after a dear friend of mine,( I know I can't prove that and it's something told to me in private, but nobody here really knows me  ) and , to me, he is s step above a "fundy". We disagree more than we agree....

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,

Acts 10:9-16; Romans 14

allowing mixed clothing

Galatians: 3:28

and disestablishing the law of Sabbath and the sacrificial system of worship.

Pretty much the entire Book Of Hebrews

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."

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,  teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

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.[/quote]
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities?all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19 For it was the Father?s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

Titus 2:3 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

Hebrews 1

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.

Agree to a point, but homosexuality was what happened at Lots home....and what was written about in Jude, remember, hyperbole...people did use hyperbole in OT/Nt times

  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?

Was mentioned in Leviticus 18 and implied elsewhere. God used what He did and didn't need your approval to do so..Again, every verse doesn't have to be spelled out, do you do that?

...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?

I really believe, and I say this with all sincerity, that you are a very smart guy and your heart believed everything they taught you. But something deep down didn't sit right and when you went out into the world and it didn't help you at all.... I know that feeling.
but you have fallen away, a long way off. When you pick and choose, what you accuse others of doing, and not take the whole council of God, it runs straight into apostasy.....

 

[Smellin Coffee]

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?

When it is rape.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Scripture, Old and New Testament, clearly teaches that Sodomy is a sexual sin...perversion, as we all know.

Yep. Jeremiah calls it "adultery" (which is not the same thing as homosexuality) and Jude mentioned it as men wanting to have sex with angels. So part of Sodomy is sexual in definition.

Smellin also knows what those passages say and what they mean...but he rejects that plain expression.

You have yet to give me "plain expression" where the sin of Sodom was consensual, homosexual sex. Why? Because it isn't mentioned!

Because it offends his belief system.

LOL! You don't even know my belief system about it!

So, Smellin chooses to try to hold own to his own personal canon of positive reinforcement..

And as I have consistently pointed out, this is something each and every one of us does. Unless you practice Sabbath and avoid bacon.

I dont know why it makes a difference to him.

And herein lies the truth. You don't know so you attack me.

He has, for all practical purposes, rejected Christ and is a heretic.

I think your definition of "rejecting Christ" is the same thing as my definition of "following Christ". Your gospel of orthodoxy is not the same as the recorded teachings of Jesus. Hence, I disagree with your conclusion.

I will hand it to you that I consistently fail in following Him, but I can for certain say I have not rejected Him.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

And that's why you have fallen into apostasy.........

A term which is relative to a belief system, which may or may not include truth.

And again, you contradicted what you wrote earlier about who you read......For your information, Johnny Mac is not one I look to for anything. He privately went after a dear friend of mine,( I know I can't prove that and it's something told to me in private, but nobody here really knows me  ) and , to me, he is s step above a "fundy". We disagree more than we agree....

Point taken. He is looked to by many Reformed. My apologies for making an assumption. But the idea he is a popular voice for Reformed theology and even many points of Evangelicalism, the general point still stands.

Acts 10:9-16; Romans 14

Not the recorded teachings of Jesus.

Galatians: 3:28

Not this one either.

Pretty much the entire Book Of Hebrews

0 for 3.

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,  teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

Great verse! Especially when it is clarified  to "teach to observe all I COMMANDED YOU." The earthly teachings of Jesus. Oh, and Paul was not in the group given the command. Paul was not given direct teaching from the earthly teachings of Jesus. Paul's revelation was extra-curricular, originally accepted by the Apostles until his arrest for allegedly defiling the temple. They never supported him thereafter and churches eventually left, one of which (Ephesus) was commended for identifying false apostles and rejecting them. Perhaps because one of their own was a pawn in Paul's game, but that is mere speculation.

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities?all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19 For it was the Father?s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

Titus 2:3 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

Hebrews 1

0 for 4 now. Extra-biblical teaching which was not a part of "teaching everything I HAVE COMMANDED YOU".

Agree to a point, but homosexuality was what happened at Lots home....and what was written about in Jude, remember, hyperbole...people did use hyperbole in OT/Nt times 

So you are hinging an entire doctrine, creating a "sin" for which neither you nor I are even tempted to commit on a possible literary device? How is that enough grounds to judge folks not like us?

Was mentioned in Leviticus 18 and implied elsewhere. God used what He did and didn't need your approval to do so..Again, every verse doesn't have to be spelled out, do you do that?

Again, another passage in a set of works which you (and I) choose to pick apart to believe/practice some things and reject/violate others. This happens to be a portion where you believe this part and there are other followers of Christ who view it as part of the rejected parts. There are followers of Christ who observe Sabbath, who still keep dietary laws, etc. Point being, the argument is over which parts of this section are to be obeyed and which ones are allowed to be rejected. It comes down not to what is being said, but how it is being interpreted by the individual. What makes the opinion of someone who comes to a different conclusion than you to be wrong and your opinion to be absolute truth, one which must be adhered to by others? IT IS OPINION!

I really believe, and I say this with all sincerity, that you are a very smart guy and your heart believed everything they taught you. But something deep down didn't sit right and when you went out into the world and it didn't help you at all.... I know that feeling.
but you have fallen away, a long way off. When you pick and choose, what you accuse others of doing, and not take the whole council of God, it runs straight into apostasy.....

Yet you (as do we all), pick and choose. The fact you can't take the "whole council" as presented in Leviticus is proof of that. The fact that you go to other Scriptures to prove we don't need to follow those things is proof of contradiction (though I know you won't see it that way, but rather as of 'change in times'). I guess we all apostasize.

 

[FSSL]

When it is rape.

Rape is not mentioned. Men wanting to have sex with other men is homosexual activity. How do you bypass this? If it was rape, it does not nullify their perversion.

You like to leap over the obvious to reinterpret Scripture.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

When it is rape.

Rape is not mentioned. Men wanting to have sex with other men is homosexual activity. How do you bypass this? If it was rape, it does not nullify their perversion.

You like to leap over the obvious to reinterpret Scripture.

Uh...where does it say the visitors were consensually willing? It doesn't. If they were so, they either would have consented or Lot would have tried to talk them out of it. This was clearly Lot being the intermediate between the men at the door and his visitors. He was protecting his visitors.

Oh and I never said rape nullifies perversion. I'm saying rape is different than consensual activity and the men of Sodom were seeking to rape the visitors who appeared in the form as other men.

Kinda funny how the "leap" is by you because there is NO mention of consensual sex in the Lot story. Seems like the leap is your addition to the story by not sticking with the facts mentioned.

Oh, and you know what IS mentioned? Adultery. Read Jeremiah. So you are actually associating Sodom with an entirely different sin than what IS mentioned.

Leap, anyone?

 

[FSSL]

So... in your mind, men desiring to sleep with visiting men are not homosexuals. They are rapists.

Well... if that makes sense to you... how does this help the "homosexuality is moral" argument?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Smellin:
I think your definition of "rejecting Christ" is the same thing as my definition of "following Christ". Your gospel of orthodoxy is not the same as the recorded teachings of Jesus. Hence, I disagree with your conclusion.

I will hand it to you that I consistently fail in following Him, but I can for certain say I have not rejected Him.

Follow Him!?
You aren't even sure who He is...
You know, because you just know, that he isn't God, didn't die for your sins and his resurrection is therefore moot.

Other than that...

 

[Smellin Coffee]

So... in your mind, men desiring to sleep with visiting men are not homosexuals. They are rapists.

Well... if that makes sense to you... how does this help the "homosexuality is moral" argument?

No, men who attempt to have sex with angels/disguised as men against their (visitors') will are sexual predators.

But we know Jude said it was the "sex with angels" part which is what made things so bad for the people of Sodom.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Smellin:
I think your definition of "rejecting Christ" is the same thing as my definition of "following Christ". Your gospel of orthodoxy is not the same as the recorded teachings of Jesus. Hence, I disagree with your conclusion.

I will hand it to you that I consistently fail in following Him, but I can for certain say I have not rejected Him.

Follow Him!?
You aren't even sure who He is...
You know, because you just know, that he isn't God, didn't die for your sins and his resurrection is therefore moot.

Other than that...

If you would follow Him, you would seek His teaching as a primary focus and let His recorded words tell you who He really is.

But there IS a cost: a desire to leave arrogance and religion behind.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Smellin:
I think your definition of "rejecting Christ" is the same thing as my definition of "following Christ". Your gospel of orthodoxy is not the same as the recorded teachings of Jesus. Hence, I disagree with your conclusion.

I will hand it to you that I consistently fail in following Him, but I can for certain say I have not rejected Him.

Follow Him!?
You aren't even sure who He is...
You know, because you just know, that he isn't God, didn't die for your sins and his resurrection is therefore moot.

Other than that...

If you would follow Him, you would seek His teaching as a primary focus and let His recorded words tell you who He really is.

But there IS a cost: a desire to leave arrogance and religion behind.

According to you, who is Jesus?
Is he god?
Did he die for our sins?
Was he resurrected?
If so, why?

 

[FSSL]

No, men who attempt to have sex with angels/disguised as men against their (visitors') will are sexual predators.

But we know Jude said it was the "sex with angels" part which is what made things so bad for the people of Sodom.

My word.... this is just a continued inability to read the context.

The angels mentioned in Jude were NOT involved in the Sodom and Gomorrah illustration. Two different illustrations.. both speaking of perversions, but two different illustrations.

You have a real difficulty understanding Scripture.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

According to you, who is Jesus?
Is he god?

I agree with Peter when he said that Jesus "is the Christ, the Son of the Living God".

Did he die for our sins?

Jesus died but not for atonement purposes, IMHO. He never taught that was the reason for His eventual death. Nor is it recorded He taught it to His followers after His resurrection, before his ascension.

Was he resurrected?
If so, why?

Yes, I believe he was resurrected from the dead. The resurrection authenticated He was who He said He was and that HIS TEACHINGS were to be propagated to the ends of the earth. Through the Last Supper, Jesus became the mediator between God and Man, fulfilling the covenant with God. So it is through Jesus we have our propitiation through covenant, not through sacrifice. "Go and learn what this means: 'I (God) desire mercy and NOT sacrifice'.

I have already discussed it here and here.

The question is, what if Jesus really meant what HE said, apart from the other writings that "orthodoxy" decided to put in the same canon with equal authority?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

No, men who attempt to have sex with angels/disguised as men against their (visitors') will are sexual predators.

But we know Jude said it was the "sex with angels" part which is what made things so bad for the people of Sodom.

My word.... this is just a continued inability to read the context.

The angels mentioned in Jude were NOT involved in the Sodom and Gomorrah illustration. Two different illustrations.. both speaking of perversions, but two different illustrations.

You have a real difficulty understanding Scripture.

Umm...the idea of 'strange flesh' was exactly what Jude was talking about; sexual relations with other species, not men-with-men. The illustration is how Sodom blasphemed angels through their behavior, so yeah, Jude was talking about men's relationship with angelic beings. THAT is the context.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

According to you, who is Jesus?
Is he god?

I agree with Peter when he said that Jesus "is the Christ, the Son of the Living God".

Did he die for our sins?

Jesus died but not for atonement purposes, IMHO. He never taught that was the reason for His eventual death. Nor is it recorded He taught it to His followers after His resurrection, before his ascension.

Was he resurrected?
If so, why?

Yes, I believe he was resurrected from the dead. The resurrection authenticated He was who He said He was and that HIS TEACHINGS were to be propagated to the ends of the earth. Through the Last Supper, Jesus became the mediator between God and Man, fulfilling the covenant with God. So it is through Jesus we have our propitiation through covenant, not through sacrifice. "Go and learn what this means: 'I (God) desire mercy and NOT sacrifice'.

I have already discussed it here and here.

The question is, what if Jesus really meant what HE said, apart from the other writings that "orthodoxy" decided to put in the same canon with equal authority?

I believe in heresy and apostasy!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

No, men who attempt to have sex with angels/disguised as men against their (visitors') will are sexual predators.

But we know Jude said it was the "sex with angels" part which is what made things so bad for the people of Sodom.

My word.... this is just a continued inability to read the context.

The angels mentioned in Jude were NOT involved in the Sodom and Gomorrah illustration. Two different illustrations.. both speaking of perversions, but two different illustrations.

You have a real difficulty understanding Scripture.

I believe he completely understands the text, he has to nobody is that dense.
He also understands Paul's teachings....but they don't line up with what he believes, so his belief supersede the clear and plain teaching of scripture.

He is simply like every other cult member and false teacher.
Srripture really doesn't say what it clearly says...it says what Smellin says it says...

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I believe he completely understands the text, he has to nobody is that dense.

Of course I understand the text. I happened to agree with MacArthur on the Jude text.

He also understands Paul's teachings....but they don't line up with what he believes Jesus taught, so his belief supersede the clear and plain teaching of scripture.

Fixed it for ya!

He is simply like every other cult member and false teacher.
Srripture really doesn't say what it clearly says...it says what Smellin says it says...

I disagree. It says what it does, I just don't believe your (and the Evangelical) interpretation and hermeneutical expression about it.

I want to thank you for clearly admitting that one who chooses to follow solely the earthly teachings of Jesus is considered a heretic and an apostate to the Evangelical system. This is exactly the biggest issue I have with Evangelicalism.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I believe he completely understands the text, he has to nobody is that dense.

Of course I understand the text. I happened to agree with MacArthur on the Jude text.

He also understands Paul's teachings....but they don't line up with what he believes Jesus taught, so his belief supersede the clear and plain teaching of scripture.

Fixed it for ya!

He is simply like every other cult member and false teacher.
Srripture really doesn't say what it clearly says...it says what Smellin says it says...

I disagree. It says what it does, I just don't believe your (and the Evangelical) interpretation and hermeneutical expression about it.

I want to thank you for clearly admitting that one who chooses to follow solely the earthly teachings of Jesus is considered a heretic and an apostate to the Evangelical system. This is exactly the biggest issue I have with Evangelicalism.

Here you go, Smellin:
http://babylonbee.com/news/joel-osteen-ordered-acquire-butchers-license-due-exegetical-methods/