Transgender boy wins girls state wrestling title

[Tarheel Baptist]

Weren't you a goat once

you don't read about goats turning into sheep, i was dead in my trespasses.......

And so are they! People are only goats when you treat them as helpless cases who God can't save.

God saves whom He chooses... See Romans 9 and Ephesians 1

So you're saying it's pointless to evangelize because of this?

How do you equate 'God saves whom He chooses', with Biblical references....to its pointless to evangelize?

 

[FSSL]

Did you read about it?  I wish I had not.  True, perhaps he did not go through with it; but no doubt, many have had that procedure done.

So... he makes the claim that Jenner had his male part removed.

He states that he read about the procedure.

Now, he claims that he may not have had his parts removed.

Yep... caught in a fabrication that was attempted to be supported by his reading of Jenner's male part removal.

The dishonest debate approach of Hyles lives on... Route_70 rejects his upbringing, but keeps the worst parts of it.

 

[Tatterdemalion]

Weren't you a goat once

you don't read about goats turning into sheep, i was dead in my trespasses.......

And so are they! People are only goats when you treat them as helpless cases who God can't save.

God saves whom He chooses... See Romans 9 and Ephesians 1

So you're saying it's pointless to evangelize because of this?

How do you equate 'God saves whom He chooses', with Biblical references....to its pointless to evangelize?

When I read his post, I thought he meant that God has already chosen who will be saved, so preaching the Gospel to the people in question  is pointless because they apparently are not chosen.

 

[Recovering IFB]

Weren't you a goat once

you don't read about goats turning into sheep, i was dead in my trespasses.......

And so are they! People are only goats when you treat them as helpless cases who God can't save.

God saves whom He chooses... See Romans 9 and Ephesians 1

So you're saying it's pointless to evangelize because of this?

How do you equate 'God saves whom He chooses', with Biblical references....to its pointless to evangelize?

When I read his post, I thought he meant that God has already chosen who will be saved, so preaching the Gospel to the people in question  is pointless because they apparently are not chosen.

God has chosen beforehand... and he uses the Gospel as the means by which He chose to save His people... you know, faith comes by hearing....

 

[Tatterdemalion]

Weren't you a goat once

you don't read about goats turning into sheep, i was dead in my trespasses.......

And so are they! People are only goats when you treat them as helpless cases who God can't save.

God saves whom He chooses... See Romans 9 and Ephesians 1

So you're saying it's pointless to evangelize because of this?

How do you equate 'God saves whom He chooses', with Biblical references....to its pointless to evangelize?

When I read his post, I thought he meant that God has already chosen who will be saved, so preaching the Gospel to the people in question  is pointless because they apparently are not chosen.

God has chosen beforehand... and he uses the Gospel as the means by which He chose to save His people... you know, faith comes by hearing....

This I can agree with. I apologize for misunderstanding.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Jesus, as the Son of God, modeled loving one's enemies. He didn't even hate Judas.

The only hate I see is from you towards the orthodox teaching of scripture .

Perhaps so.

Loving God just might mean one "hates" religious orthodoxy.

Besides, SDA, JWs, Catholics and such use the same scripture as a part of their orthodoxy, yet I'm sure most Evangelicals "hate" their "orthodox teaching of scripture".

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Jesus, as the Son of God, modeled loving one's enemies. He didn't even hate Judas.

The only hate I see is from you towards the orthodox teaching of scripture .

Perhaps so.

Loving God just might mean one "hates" religious orthodoxy.

Besides, SDA, JWs, Catholics and such use the same scripture as a part of their orthodoxy, yet I'm sure most Evangelicals "hate" their "orthodox teaching of scripture".

Others just put together their own personal religion, based on their arbitrary canon of positive reinforcement. Which is, of course, based on what they personally believe.

I know it sounds crazy, but it's true! 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Jesus, as the Son of God, modeled loving one's enemies. He didn't even hate Judas.

The only hate I see is from you towards the orthodox teaching of scripture .

Perhaps so.

Loving God just might mean one "hates" religious orthodoxy.

Besides, SDA, JWs, Catholics and such use the same scripture as a part of their orthodoxy, yet I'm sure most Evangelicals "hate" their "orthodox teaching of scripture".

Others just put together their own personal religion, based on their arbitrary canon of positive reinforcement. Which is, of course, based on what they personally believe.

I know it sounds crazy, but it's true! 

Yep. Just like Evangelicals who claim their orthodox position is the only right one! You know what I mean, anyone's relative hermeneutic is wrong unless it agrees with the Evangelically-relative hermeneutic!

It isn't the scriptures themselves for which you argue, it is for which personal interpretation of such is agreeable. So the argument is about perspective, not actually about truth. Evangelical orthodoxy is just as much a perspective as those other groups I mentioned above.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Jesus, as the Son of God, modeled loving one's enemies. He didn't even hate Judas.

The only hate I see is from you towards the orthodox teaching of scripture .

Perhaps so.

Loving God just might mean one "hates" religious orthodoxy.

Besides, SDA, JWs, Catholics and such use the same scripture as a part of their orthodoxy, yet I'm sure most Evangelicals "hate" their "orthodox teaching of scripture".

Others just put together their own personal religion, based on their arbitrary canon of positive reinforcement. Which is, of course, based on what they personally believe.

I know it sounds crazy, but it's true! 

Yep. Just like Evangelicals who claim their orthodox position is the only right one! You know what I mean, anyone's relative hermeneutic is wrong unless it agrees with the Evangelically-relative hermeneutic!

It isn't the scriptures themselves for which you argue, it is for which personal interpretation of such is agreeable. So the argument is about perspective, not actually about truth. Evangelical orthodoxy is just as much a perspective as those other groups I mentioned above.

The issue is the source of truth.
Yours' is Smellin, based on what you experienced in the circus in Hammond. I find that ironic, BTW.
Others use the Scripture. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Jesus, as the Son of God, modeled loving one's enemies. He didn't even hate Judas.

The only hate I see is from you towards the orthodox teaching of scripture .

Perhaps so.

Loving God just might mean one "hates" religious orthodoxy.

Besides, SDA, JWs, Catholics and such use the same scripture as a part of their orthodoxy, yet I'm sure most Evangelicals "hate" their "orthodox teaching of scripture".

Others just put together their own personal religion, based on their arbitrary canon of positive reinforcement. Which is, of course, based on what they personally believe.

I know it sounds crazy, but it's true! 

Yep. Just like Evangelicals who claim their orthodox position is the only right one! You know what I mean, anyone's relative hermeneutic is wrong unless it agrees with the Evangelically-relative hermeneutic!

It isn't the scriptures themselves for which you argue, it is for which personal interpretation of such is agreeable. So the argument is about perspective, not actually about truth. Evangelical orthodoxy is just as much a perspective as those other groups I mentioned above.

The issue is the source of truth.
Yours' is Smellin, based on what you experienced in the circus in Hammond. I find that ironic, BTW.
Others use the Scripture. 

I just pointed out groups that use the same source as you, yet you disagree.

So the source isn't the issue; the issue is perspective and opinion, not only about what the source teaches, but about the contents of the source itself.

Orthodoxy is nothing more than a single perspective. It isn't about absolute truth.

 

[LongGone]

Jesus, as the Son of God, modeled loving one's enemies. He didn't even hate Judas.

The only hate I see is from you towards the orthodox teaching of scripture .

Perhaps so.

Loving God just might mean one "hates" religious orthodoxy.

Besides, SDA, JWs, Catholics and such use the same scripture as a part of their orthodoxy, yet I'm sure most Evangelicals "hate" their "orthodox teaching of scripture".

Others just put together their own personal religion, based on their arbitrary canon of positive reinforcement. Which is, of course, based on what they personally believe.

I know it sounds crazy, but it's true! 

Yep. Just like Evangelicals who claim their orthodox position is the only right one! You know what I mean, anyone's relative hermeneutic is wrong unless it agrees with the Evangelically-relative hermeneutic!

It isn't the scriptures themselves for which you argue, it is for which personal interpretation of such is agreeable. So the argument is about perspective, not actually about truth. Evangelical orthodoxy is just as much a perspective as those other groups I mentioned above.

The issue is the source of truth.
Yours' is Smellin, based on what you experienced in the circus in Hammond. I find that ironic, BTW.
Others use the Scripture. 

Interesting. Thousands have experienced the circus in Hammond. SC is the only one I know that has come to his conclusions. I find it ironic that you somehow connect these dots based on the beliefs of one person.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Jesus, as the Son of God, modeled loving one's enemies. He didn't even hate Judas.

The only hate I see is from you towards the orthodox teaching of scripture .

Perhaps so.

Loving God just might mean one "hates" religious orthodoxy.

Besides, SDA, JWs, Catholics and such use the same scripture as a part of their orthodoxy, yet I'm sure most Evangelicals "hate" their "orthodox teaching of scripture".

Others just put together their own personal religion, based on their arbitrary canon of positive reinforcement. Which is, of course, based on what they personally believe.

I know it sounds crazy, but it's true! 

Yep. Just like Evangelicals who claim their orthodox position is the only right one! You know what I mean, anyone's relative hermeneutic is wrong unless it agrees with the Evangelically-relative hermeneutic!

It isn't the scriptures themselves for which you argue, it is for which personal interpretation of such is agreeable. So the argument is about perspective, not actually about truth. Evangelical orthodoxy is just as much a perspective as those other groups I mentioned above.

The issue is the source of truth.
Yours' is Smellin, based on what you experienced in the circus in Hammond. I find that ironic, BTW.
Others use the Scripture. 

Interesting. Thousands have experienced the circus in Hammond. SC is the only one I know that has come to his conclusions. I find it ironic that you somehow connect these dots based on the beliefs of one person.

Hammond wasn't the point, Goner...but you and Smellin have that
(Hammond)in common. Smellin has, IMO thrown the proverbial baby out with the bath water. While rejecting the extreme views and practice while he was there he in turn created his own extremist views. Hammond still influences his life.

And, not all people responded in a similar manner...the forum has more than a few who reject the lunacy they were exposed to but maintain their basic evangelical beliefs.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Smellin has, IMO thrown the proverbial baby out with the bath water. While rejecting the extreme views and practice while he was there he in turn created his own extremist views. Hammond still influences his life.


And, not all people responded in a similar manner...the forum has more than a few who reject the lunacy they were exposed to but maintain their basic evangelical beliefs.

For the record, I was exposed to Hammond for the first 21 years of my life. (Technically, age 7-21.) I was exposed to Evangelicalism the next 28 years. My rejection of Evangelicalism is due to it being nothing more Fundamentalism in skinny jeans, goatee and coffee in the building, with a tad more tolerance and benevolence. Decades have shown me inside of both sects of alleged Christianity, beats the heart of the same monster. I can't speak for anybody else nor their positive or negative experiences, but I've been inside of both long enough to see how far from the teachings of Jesus so-called Christianity has drifted.

I still have my faith in God through the recorded teachings of Jesus Christ and I still attend church regularly. But I'm going to call out religious hypocrisy and error as I see it, even when it is at the core of Evangelicalism orthodoxy. It doesn't matter if people listen or not. What matters is my clear conscience when I stand before Jesus someday in response to how I responded to the things He taught. American Christianity be damned. Seriously.

 

[Bruh]

Lol!!!! The markers are XY and XX

XX and XY are chromosome pairs #45 and #46.  Genetic markers are gene mutations that become a permanent part of a particular person's genome, and are passed down from generation to generation.

You look foolish attempting to portray yourself as an expert in something about which you know nothing.

Lol!!!!

Sexual deviations are unnatural.

Sexual deviations are not normal (average); however, since they occur naturally, that makes them natural.

A man that claims to be born a homosexual ends up in the same bed as a willing woman to have intercourse that homosexual man will perform, period.

"If" a man were to be born a homosexual, logic says that the thought of intercourse with a woman would be repulsive, period. No homosexual believes it's repulsive to have sex with a woman.

 

[Bruh]

Desires for things God has forbidden are a reflection of how sin has distorted me, not how God has made me.

 

[Route_70]

No homosexual believes it's repulsive to have sex with a woman.

Brave of you to admit it.

 

[Route_70]

Desires for things God has forbidden are a reflection of how sin has distorted me, not how God has made me.

No need to be ashamed of your desires.  Go ahead.  It's okay.

 

[Tatterdemalion]

Desires for things God has forbidden are a reflection of how sin has distorted me, not how God has made me.

No need to be ashamed of your desires.  Go ahead.  It's okay.

Vamoose behind me, Satan

there's a difference between self-shame and knowing how to control yourself, just like anyone in society is supposed to do

 

[LongGone]

Lol!!!! The markers are XY and XX

XX and XY are chromosome pairs #45 and #46.  Genetic markers are gene mutations that become a permanent part of a particular person's genome, and are passed down from generation to generation.

You look foolish attempting to portray yourself as an expert in something about which you know nothing.

Lol!!!!

Sexual deviations are unnatural.

Sexual deviations are not normal (average); however, since they occur naturally, that makes them natural.

A man that claims to be born a homosexual ends up in the same bed as a willing woman to have intercourse that homosexual man will perform, period.

"If" a man were to be born a homosexual, logic says that the thought of intercourse with a woman would be repulsive, period. No homosexual believes it's repulsive to have sex with a woman.

I am not sure why you think this. There are homosexual men who would be repulsed. The fact that most men would be repulsed with the idea of sleeping with a man is a sign we are not all "born" the same.

 

[LongGone]

Jesus, as the Son of God, modeled loving one's enemies. He didn't even hate Judas.

The only hate I see is from you towards the orthodox teaching of scripture .

Perhaps so.

Loving God just might mean one "hates" religious orthodoxy.

Besides, SDA, JWs, Catholics and such use the same scripture as a part of their orthodoxy, yet I'm sure most Evangelicals "hate" their "orthodox teaching of scripture".

Others just put together their own personal religion, based on their arbitrary canon of positive reinforcement. Which is, of course, based on what they personally believe.

I know it sounds crazy, but it's true! 

Yep. Just like Evangelicals who claim their orthodox position is the only right one! You know what I mean, anyone's relative hermeneutic is wrong unless it agrees with the Evangelically-relative hermeneutic!

It isn't the scriptures themselves for which you argue, it is for which personal interpretation of such is agreeable. So the argument is about perspective, not actually about truth. Evangelical orthodoxy is just as much a perspective as those other groups I mentioned above.

The issue is the source of truth.
Yours' is Smellin, based on what you experienced in the circus in Hammond. I find that ironic, BTW.
Others use the Scripture. 

Interesting. Thousands have experienced the circus in Hammond. SC is the only one I know that has come to his conclusions. I find it ironic that you somehow connect these dots based on the beliefs of one person.

Hammond wasn't the point, Goner...but you and Smellin have that
(Hammond)in common. Smellin has, IMO thrown the proverbial baby out with the bath water. While rejecting the extreme views and practice while he was there he in turn created his own extremist views. Hammond still influences his life.

And, not all people responded in a similar manner...the forum has more than a few who reject the lunacy they were exposed to but maintain their basic evangelical beliefs.

The issue is the source of truth.
Yours' is Smellin, based on what you experienced in the circus in Hammond. I find that ironic, BTW.
Others use the Scripture

That was your statement and that was your point.  You said Smellin came to his beliefs because of the circus in Hammond. Your point is illogical because SC is the only known person with ties to Hammond who hold that point of view. SC also did a good job of explaining that Hammond by far and away was not the only influence in his life.

So you are the judge of what motivates SC? You know him well enough to know what he has or hasn't moved past. That sounds really arrogant. At the end of the day it appears that you can't debate the issues with SC so you chose instead to tell him that he hasn't left his behind. I'd say you maybe SBC but IFB still influences the way you deal with people who disagree with you :