Transgender boy wins girls state wrestling title

[Bruh]

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.

You can pretty much believe anything on the internet.

 

[Route_70]

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.

Well, let me hand to you your butt on a platter.  The Hebrew word is ?????????.  It is very similar to the word "taboo."  As a matter of fact, not only is it pronounced the same way, it means the same thing.

The Egytpians had taboos (Genesis 43;32).  The Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites all had taboos (Deuteronomy 20:17, 18).  It was considered taboo for a woman to wear a man's garment (Deuteronomy 22:5).  It is taboo to be froward (Proverbs 3:32).  A false balance is taboo (Proverbs 11:1).  Lying lips are taboo (Proverbs 12:22).  Every one that is proud in heart is taboo (Proverbs 16:5).

I could go on.  Like taking candy from a baby.

 

[Tatterdemalion]

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.

Well, let me hand to you your butt on a platter.  The Hebrew word is ?????????.  It is very similar to the word "taboo."  As a matter of fact, not only is it pronounced the same way, it means the same thing.

The Egytpians had taboos (Genesis 43;32).  The Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites all had taboos (Deuteronomy 20:17, 18).  It was considered taboo for a woman to wear a man's garment (Deuteronomy 22:5).  It is taboo to be froward (Proverbs 3:32).  A false balance is taboo (Proverbs 11:1).  Lying lips are taboo (Proverbs 12:22).  Every one that is proud in heart is taboo (Proverbs 16:5).

I could go on.  Like taking candy from a baby.

So you're saying that they did something that God considered detestable. Doesn't mean they can't have committed certain sins.

 

[Tatterdemalion]

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.

You can pretty much believe anything on the internet.

I prefer to hear it from the people in question. And I do.

 

[Recovering IFB]

Well, let me hand to you your butt on a platter.  The Hebrew word is ?????????.  It is very similar to the word "taboo."  As a matter of fact, not only is it pronounced the same way, it means the same thing.

The Egytpians had taboos (Genesis 43;32).  The Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites all had taboos (Deuteronomy 20:17, 18).  It was considered taboo for a woman to wear a man's garment (Deuteronomy 22:5).  It is taboo to be froward (Proverbs 3:32).  A false balance is taboo (Proverbs 11:1).  Lying lips are taboo (Proverbs 12:22).  Every one that is proud in heart is taboo (Proverbs 16:5).

I could go on.  Like taking candy from a baby.

Yeah, ok.... you didn't do anything but erect a straw man and not engage with the Scriptures I provided, the ines you didn't quote that followed the point you attempted to make. Through your church history(is that taughtbat HAC?) nobody from orthodoxy believed it any different other than what you and SC are promoting. If you want to try and prove that homosexuality is pleasingnin God's sight, you two have to try another approach outside of the Scriptures because this isn't working for you.
But, on the other hand... I am happy to see that being an "atheist" that your fall back position is still the Word of God... there is hope for you yet.

 

[Route_70]

Yeah, ok.... you didn't do anything but erect a straw man and not engage with the Scriptures I provided, the ines you didn't quote that followed the point you attempted to make. Through your church history(is that taughtbat HAC?) nobody from orthodoxy believed it any different other than what you and SC are promoting. If you want to try and prove that homosexuality is pleasingnin God's sight, you two have to try another approach outside of the Scriptures because this isn't working for you.
But, on the other hand... I am happy to see that being an "atheist" that your fall back position is still the Word of God... there is hope for you yet.

Well, I did show that the same word to describe how God feels abouts some things also applies to a woman who wears britches.

 

[Recovering IFB]

Well, I did show that the same word to describe how God feels abouts some things also applies to a woman who wears britches.

Again,  contextualzation is your friend here. HAC wasn't big on that huh? ( Hint: it has to do with distinction). You know, about the difference between man and a women. Kinda also destroys you pro-gay stance once you think about it.

 

[Route_70]

Again,  contextualzation is your friend here. HAC wasn't big on that huh? ( Hint: it has to do with distinction). You know, about the difference between man and a women. Kinda also destroys you pro-gay stance once you think about it.

Nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality specifically mentioned.  However, if we assume that homosexuality is labelled as an abomination, then we must agree that women wearing britches is likewise labelled as an abomination.  Women are specifically forbidden from wearing clothing, which apply to men.  In my house, britches apply to men.  That may not be the case in your house.

 

[Ransom]

You can pretty much believe anything on the internet.

Says a guy posting on the Internet.

 

[Route_70]

You can pretty much believe anything on the internet.

Says a guy posting on the Internet.

Replied to by a guy (I presume) who typically misrepresents what the poster said and meant.

 

[Twisted]

Women are specifically forbidden from wearing clothing, which apply to men.  In my house, britches apply to men.

Conclusion:  There are no britches in Route 666's house.

 

[Tatterdemalion]

Again,  contextualzation is your friend here. HAC wasn't big on that huh? ( Hint: it has to do with distinction). You know, about the difference between man and a women. Kinda also destroys you pro-gay stance once you think about it.

Nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality specifically mentioned.  However, if we assume that homosexuality is labelled as an abomination, then we must agree that women wearing britches is likewise labelled as an abomination.  Women are specifically forbidden from wearing clothing, which apply to men.  In my house, britches apply to men.  That may not be the case in your house.

Homosexuality might not be specifically mentioned, but men practicing homosexual sex is (Lev 20:13)

 

[Route_70]

Homosexuality might not be specifically mentioned, but men practicing homosexual sex is (Lev 20:13)

So do you subscribe to this verse?  If so, then you subscribe to the punishment.  And if you subscribe to the punishment so ascribed, then what will you do with the punishments ascribed to the other offenses listed in Leviticus, chapter 20.  If you disavow capital punishment for any of the offenses listed in this chapter, then how can you subscribe to anything listed in the chapter?

 

[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.

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

Actually there is a lot more substance there than you are giving me credit for. You decided that in your opinion that SC theological views came because of the circus in Hammond. Then you changed it to people who have forsaken the beliefs they had when they were young. If that is your standard then there are a lot of people who have come through Liberty that no longer hold to the belief they had when they were young so you have no real point. I was in my teens and young 20s in Hammond. I am pass 60 now. We are all products of our experiences but I have grown in many ways since then that have nothing to do with Hammond.  I would not take this cheap shot but if I wanted to take a cheap shot I would say it doesn't sound like you have grown much since your days at Liberty...you don't appear to think much differently now than you did then 8)

 

[Recovering IFB]

Nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality specifically mentioned.

Leviticus 18 is pretty cut and dry

However, if we assume that homosexuality is labelled as an abomination, then we must agree that women wearing britches is likewise labelled as an abomination.

If read in it's proper context.......

  In my house, britches apply to men.  That may not be the case in your house.

But, but, you're an athiest, why do you concern yourself with this?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

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?

It isn't about Trump as much as goading the ox of the supposed "moral" religious right who voted for him.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Leviticus 18 is pretty cut and dry

Yep. It's about males. No mention of lesbianism. So there's that. (Funny how women in the passage were prohibited to lie with animals, but no mention of prohibition in lying with other women.)

If you extend it to include gay females, Route_70 is correct in the idea that your context demands you extending the WHOLE law, not simply a singular code. This would mean stoning rebellious children, trimming the beard appropriately, not wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, not eating that shellfish or bacon, etc. Don't forget, this very same passage clearly states just three verses before the one to which you refer, it is taboo to even see one's wife undressed while she is on her period. I have YET to hear a preacher preach that verse from the pulpit.

So you pick and choose what you want to believe to be applicable, just like the rest of us. I wonder if Tarheel would label you as 'the arbiter of your own truth'...

 

[Tatterdemalion]

Leviticus 18 is pretty cut and dry

Yep. It's about males. No mention of lesbianism. So there's that. (Funny how women in the passage were prohibited to lie with animals, but no mention of prohibition in lying with other women.)

If you extend it to include gay females, Route_70 is correct in the idea that your context demands you extending the WHOLE law, not simply a singular code. This would mean stoning rebellious children, trimming the beard appropriately, not wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, not eating that shellfish or bacon, etc. Don't forget, this very same passage clearly states just three verses before the one to which you refer, it is taboo to even see one's wife undressed while she is on her period. I have YET to hear a preacher preach that verse from the pulpit.

So you pick and choose what you want to believe to be applicable, just like the rest of us. I wonder if Tarheel would label you as 'the arbiter of your own truth'...

Romans 1:26-27

 

[Route_70]

Romans 1:26-27

"Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them (Romans 1:32)."

So then, are you, like Paul, in favor of the death penalty for those who engage in acts of homosexuality?

 

[Tatterdemalion]

Romans 1:26-27

"Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them (Romans 1:32)."

So then, are you, like Paul, in favor of the death penalty for those who engage in acts of homosexuality?

It says that us who are sinners are worthy of death, not that we should kill eachother. Christ died as a sacrifice for my sins so that I could be saved from the punishment my sin deserves because of my inability to uphold the law.