Transgender boy wins girls state wrestling title

[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.

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 :

Judas went out and hanged himself.
Go thou and do likewise.


I said IMO...in my opinion.
I have told you before 2000+ years of Orthodox Christianity argue against his apostate beliefs.
I have no argument against my life experience influencing me today.
But, I know a false belief system when I see it and I can spot liberal idiocy just as well.
Me and about everyone else on the FFF. 

 

[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.

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.

Nope, no male would think repulsive.

Why do I think this? Because he is a man, that's why.

 

[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 :

Judas went out and hanged himself.
Go thou and do likewise.


I said IMO...in my opinion.
I have told you before 2000+ years of Orthodox Christianity argue against his apostate beliefs.
I have no argument against my life experience influencing me today.
But, I know a false belief system when I see it and I can spot liberal idiocy just as well.
Me and about everyone else on the FFF. 

Don't change the subject. I have never defended what SC believes. I don't care enough. Your opinion is that SC came to his theological opinions due to the circus in Hammond. My opinion is that is a stupid conclusion since SC is the only one of the thousands of people who have come through Hammond that has the beliefs as SC.

 

[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.

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 :

Judas went out and hanged himself.
Go thou and do likewise.


I said IMO...in my opinion.
I have told you before 2000+ years of Orthodox Christianity argue against his apostate beliefs.
I have no argument against my life experience influencing me today.
But, I know a false belief system when I see it and I can spot liberal idiocy just as well.
Me and about everyone else on the FFF. 

Don't change the subject. I have never defended what SC believes. I don't care enough. Your opinion is that SC came to his theological opinions due to the circus in Hammond. My opinion is that is a stupid conclusion since SC is the only one of the thousands of people who have come through Hammond that has the beliefs as SC.

There are many who have come through Hammond who have forsaken their beliefs, many, many. There are others who have gone to the other extreme in their belief system....Smellin and Dr Hyles own daughter Linda hold very odd, again IMO, beliefs.

But everyone is entitled to their opinion....even me. 

 

[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 :

Judas went out and hanged himself.
Go thou and do likewise.


I said IMO...in my opinion.
I have told you before 2000+ years of Orthodox Christianity argue against his apostate beliefs.
I have no argument against my life experience influencing me today.
But, I know a false belief system when I see it and I can spot liberal idiocy just as well.
Me and about everyone else on the FFF. 

Don't change the subject. I have never defended what SC believes. I don't care enough. Your opinion is that SC came to his theological opinions due to the circus in Hammond. My opinion is that is a stupid conclusion since SC is the only one of the thousands of people who have come through Hammond that has the beliefs as SC.

There are many who have come through Hammond who have forsaken their beliefs, many, many. There are others who have gone to the other extreme in their belief system....Smellin and Dr Hyles own daughter Linda hold very odd, again IMO, beliefs.

But everyone is entitled to their opinion....even me. 

A whole lot like people who have come through Liberty.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

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.

Nope, no male would think repulsive.

Why do I think this? Because he is a man, that's why.

Nope. You are referring to bi-sexuality, which is a different thing. You simply view men's sexuality the pinnacle of masculinity.

Being gay is not simply about sex; it is about intimacy and connection. Sex may be a part of it, but its about feeling fulfillment in relationships of the same gender, not sex alone.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

But everyone is entitled to their opinion....even me. 

This is absolutely correct. And I have no issue with you believing your opinion and even debating your perspective. I believe differences make for a healthier life, as it helps see life from behind the eyes of another. This has the potential to initiate an environment of empathy and compassion.

The issue I have is when you claim your opinion involving faith and politics IS absolute truth and you malign those who disagree with your opinion. 

 

[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.

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 :

Judas went out and hanged himself.
Go thou and do likewise.


I said IMO...in my opinion.
I have told you before 2000+ years of Orthodox Christianity argue against his apostate beliefs.
I have no argument against my life experience influencing me today.
But, I know a false belief system when I see it and I can spot liberal idiocy just as well.
Me and about everyone else on the FFF. 

Don't change the subject. I have never defended what SC believes. I don't care enough. Your opinion is that SC came to his theological opinions due to the circus in Hammond. My opinion is that is a stupid conclusion since SC is the only one of the thousands of people who have come through Hammond that has the beliefs as SC.

There are many who have come through Hammond who have forsaken their beliefs, many, many. There are others who have gone to the other extreme in their belief system....Smellin and Dr Hyles own daughter Linda hold very odd, again IMO, beliefs.

But everyone is entitled to their opinion....even me. 

A whole lot like people who have come through Liberty.

I'm sure.
So, now you're changing the subject!?
You are simply filled with substance, ain't ya goner!!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

But everyone is entitled to their opinion....even me. 

This is absolutely correct. And I have no issue with you believing your opinion and even debating your perspective. I believe differences make for a healthier life, as it helps see life from behind the eyes of another. This has the potential to initiate an environment of empathy and compassion.

The issue I have is when you claim your opinion involving faith and politics IS absolute truth and you malign those who disagree with your opinion.

People who claim truth is absolute!!!
Be vewy, vewy afwaid Elmer!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

But everyone is entitled to their opinion....even me. 

This is absolutely correct. And I have no issue with you believing your opinion and even debating your perspective. I believe differences make for a healthier life, as it helps see life from behind the eyes of another. This has the potential to initiate an environment of empathy and compassion.

The issue I have is when you claim your opinion involving faith and politics IS absolute truth and you malign those who disagree with your opinion.

People who claim truth is absolute!!!
Be vewy, vewy afwaid Elmer!

Nope. Not afraid. Truth by nature IS absolute. When it comes to matters of faith, what isn't absolute is human perspective on what that truth really is.

 

[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.

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.

Nope, no male would think repulsive.

Why do I think this? Because he is a man, that's why.

Nope. You are referring to bi-sexuality, which is a different thing. You simply view men's sexuality the pinnacle of masculinity.

Being gay is not simply about sex; it is about intimacy and connection. Sex may be a part of it, but its about feeling fulfillment in relationships of the same gender, not sex alone.

Nope!


"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.

 

[Ransom]

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

And you know this how? I've read plenty of stuff on the Internet by women who think it's repulsive to have intercourse with a man.

 

[Tatterdemalion]

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

I'm sorry, but this couldn't be any more wrong. Homosexual men have no sexual desire for women (unless the person is actually bisexual), sometimes to the point where they live rather sexist lifestyles.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

But everyone is entitled to their opinion....even me. 

This is absolutely correct. And I have no issue with you believing your opinion and even debating your perspective. I believe differences make for a healthier life, as it helps see life from behind the eyes of another. This has the potential to initiate an environment of empathy and compassion.

The issue I have is when you claim your opinion involving faith and politics IS absolute truth and you malign those who disagree with your opinion.

People who claim truth is absolute!!!
Be vewy, vewy afwaid Elmer!

Nope. Not afraid. Truth by nature IS absolute. When it comes to matters of faith, what isn't absolute is human perspective on what that truth really is.

You do not believe truth is absolute and to you human perspective is what you say it is....

Scripture is clear that Sodomy is not only sin but an abomination. You,on the other hand, from your 'perspective', say that isn't what it means...it's only what it says!


Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

But everyone is entitled to their opinion....even me. 

This is absolutely correct. And I have no issue with you believing your opinion and even debating your perspective. I believe differences make for a healthier life, as it helps see life from behind the eyes of another. This has the potential to initiate an environment of empathy and compassion.

The issue I have is when you claim your opinion involving faith and politics IS absolute truth and you malign those who disagree with your opinion.

People who claim truth is absolute!!!
Be vewy, vewy afwaid Elmer!

Nope. Not afraid. Truth by nature IS absolute. When it comes to matters of faith, what isn't absolute is human perspective on what that truth really is.

You do not believe truth is absolute and to you human perspective is what you say it is....

Scripture is clear that Sodomy is not only sin but an abomination. You,on the other hand, from your 'perspective', say that isn't what it means...it's only what it says!


Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!

What's really ironic is I am the one who takes on the biblical definition of "Sodomy" i.e, "the sin of Sodom", which is sexual assault. ("Not caring for the marginalized" is also an acceptable biblical answer.) You (as do most Evangelicals) are the one who adds to it "consensual sex with the same gender".

So why isn't the biblical description good enough for your definition? Why don't you stick to the "absolute truth"? Could it be...

...from your 'perspective', say that isn't what it means...it's only what it says!

Hmmm...

 

[Route_70]

What's really ironic is I am the one who takes on the biblical definition of "Sodomy" i.e, "the sin of Sodom", which is sexual assault. ("Not caring for the marginalized" is also an acceptable biblical answer.) You (as do most Evangelicals) are the one who adds to it "consensual sex with the same gender".

So why isn't the biblical description good enough for your definition? Why don't you stick to the "absolute truth"?

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.  And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good (Ezekiel 16:49, 50)"

 

[Smellin Coffee]

What's really ironic is I am the one who takes on the biblical definition of "Sodomy" i.e, "the sin of Sodom", which is sexual assault. ("Not caring for the marginalized" is also an acceptable biblical answer.) You (as do most Evangelicals) are the one who adds to it "consensual sex with the same gender".

So why isn't the biblical description good enough for your definition? Why don't you stick to the "absolute truth"?

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.  And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good (Ezekiel 16:49, 50)"

Yep. Which is why I threw in my response "Not caring for the marginalized".

 

[Recovering IFB]

What's really ironic is I am the one who takes on the biblical definition of "Sodomy" i.e, "the sin of Sodom", which is sexual assault. ("Not caring for the marginalized" is also an acceptable biblical answer.) You (as do most Evangelicals) are the one who adds to it "consensual sex with the same gender".

So why isn't the biblical description good enough for your definition? Why don't you stick to the "absolute truth"?

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.  And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good (Ezekiel 16:49, 50)"

And again Rt 70, you didn't finish the thought
Vs51 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. 51 Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done.
The word "detestable", Hebrew  "tow ebah", or as we know it "abomination in an ethical or ritual sense"
I can see why you turned your back on God, HAC taught you falsehoods,and you ran with it joyfully into the world. Then the world handed you your butt on a platter.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

What's really ironic is I am the one who takes on the biblical definition of "Sodomy" i.e, "the sin of Sodom", which is sexual assault. ("Not caring for the marginalized" is also an acceptable biblical answer.) You (as do most Evangelicals) are the one who adds to it "consensual sex with the same gender".

So why isn't the biblical description good enough for your definition? Why don't you stick to the "absolute truth"?

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.  And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good (Ezekiel 16:49, 50)"

And again Rt 70, you didn't finish the thought
Vs51 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. 51 Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done.
The word "detestable", Hebrew  "tow ebah", or as we know it "abomination in an ethical or ritual sense"
I can see why you turned your back on God, HAC taught you falsehoods,and you ran with it joyfully into the world. Then the world handed you your butt on a platter.

Yes. I would consider sexual assault 'detestable". (Not sure Trump Republicans would agree with me, but that's beside the point.)

OK, then explain the context. The prophet compared Israel with Sodom and Samaria. Was Israel riddled with consensual gay sex? How about Samaria who did only half the evil Israel did?

Nah, let's take one phrase, skew the context to our spin and go with it. Like I said to Tarheel, interest isn't in the 'absolute truth', but rather how to skew it to relative perspective.

FYI, it is something we ALL do. I am willing to admit it. Will anybody else on this forum admit they do also?

 

[Ransom]

Yes. I would consider sexual assault 'detestable". (Not sure Trump Republicans would agree with me, but that's beside the point.)

Good grief, what is your obsession with pulling Trump into every possible thread? Did he spurn your advances long ago?