The Left Applauds Rape of Infant.

Ekklesian said:
But...

Post the statute, please, that well-defines this as a case of child abuse.
Click to expand...

It's impossible to list all the differing state statutes on child abuse and neglect. When I was working as a foster parent for the state of Tennessee, this would have, and still does fit ONLY the definition of child abuse and neglect. Ekklesian, I don't owe you any further definitions, as you're intentionally acting and responding as if you had no common sense whatsoever.
 
Ekklesian said:
That's right. Sexual abuse. When a man wants his nipple sucked, it's about sex. He forced an infant to perform a sexual act on him. That's rape and sodomy.
Click to expand...
You truly are a confused individual...probably as confused as the man that's sticking his nipple into the mouth of that baby. It's not about sex to the he/she. It's FAR from rape, and definitely FAR from sodomy. You're proving your ignorance more and more in every post...Please, keep on...we love watching you make a fool of yourself! ;)
 
AverageJoe said:
You truly are a confused individual...probably as confused as the man that's sticking his nipple into the mouth of that baby. It's not about sex to the he/she. It's FAR from rape, and definitely FAR from sodomy. You're proving your ignorance more and more in every post...Please, keep on...we love watching you make a fool of yourself! ;)
Click to expand...
What? No statute to quote supporting your accusation of abuse?

But the man isn't confused. The man is a perv. The woman is a perv. The child is a victim.

Does no one here question their motives in filming this and posting it?

This was all about parading their sodomy. If you went to the Scriptures as much as you go to Google, you may find their parading was a key feature in God's indictments against Sodom.

From the point of view of Heaven, this is so close to sodomy as to be called her sister.
 
tmjbog said:
No, idea. I don't claim to have the mind of Christ. Even if I did know what He would call it I doubt I would be able to pronounce it or have any clue what it meant as an English speaker.
Click to expand...
Do you claim to read the Scriptures at all?
 
Ekklesian said:
What? No statute to quote supporting your accusation of abuse?
Click to expand...
Apparently, you're not accustomed to reading. I clearly stated that each state has different statutes and that it would be impossible to post them all. If you're trying to provoke me...it's not working.
Ekklesian said:
But the man isn't confused. The man is a perv. The woman is a perv. The child is a victim.
Click to expand...
The man is DEFINITELY confused by Satan. Yes, he is also a sexual pervert, as is the woman.
Ekklesian said:
Does no one here question their motives in filming this and posting it?
Click to expand...
You have no idea what their motives were, as you're not them and don't have access to their hearts and minds. YOU are NOT the HOLY SPIRIT..not by a longshot!
Ekklesian said:
This was all about parading their sodomy. If you went to the Scriptures as much as you go to Google, you may find their parading was a key feature in God's indictments against Sodom.
Click to expand...
It's far from being sodomy. Maybe you just don't get what it is...could be...you do seem rather obtuse!

sodomy​

Primary tabs​

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary​

Anal copulation by a man inserting his penis in the anus either of another man or a woman. If accomplished by force, without consent, or with someone incapable of consent, sodomy is a felony in all states in the same way that rape is. Homosexual (male to male) consensual sodomy between consenting adults has traditionally been a felony, but increasingly is either decriminalized or seldom prosecuted. Sodomy with a consenting adult female is virtually never prosecuted even in those states in which it remains on the books as a criminal offense.
Ekklesian said:
From the point of view of Heaven, this is so close to sodomy as to be called her sister.
Click to expand...
So, you've just admitted that it's NOT sodomy. Thank you for that clarification.
 
AverageJoe said:
Anal copulation by a man inserting his penis in the anus either of another man or a woman. If accomplished by force, without consent, or with someone incapable of consent, sodomy is a felony in all states in the same way that rape is. Homosexual (male to male) consensual sodomy between consenting adults has traditionally been a felony, but increasingly is either decriminalized or seldom prosecuted. Sodomy with a consenting adult female is virtually never prosecuted even in those states in which it remains on the books as a criminal offense.
Click to expand...

I think one would find that the legal definitions vary and are seldom so strictly defined. They include a number of unnatural sex acts, not just homosexual acts.
But, my comment was, if you went to the Scriptures...

AverageJoe said:
So, you've just admitted that it's NOT sodomy. Thank you for that clarification.
Click to expand...

LOL. When God says that Sodom was the sister of Israel, it was because they were doing the same things.
 
Ekklesian said:
I think one would find that the legal definitions vary and are seldom so strictly defined. They include a number of unnatural sex acts, not just homosexual acts.
But, my comment was, if you went to the Scriptures...
Click to expand...
The Scriptures don't say anything about a man, confused about his sexuality, and believing he is emotionally and mentally that he was a woman, sticking his nipple into the mouth of a child...you're reading into Scripture what you want it to say, your preconceived notions...and that's not hermeneutically sound. Let the Bible say what it is going to say...This might fit under the Scriptural definition of perversion, but not of sodomy...it doesn't even fit under the LEGAL definition of sodomy, as I've shown.
Ekklesian said:
LOL. When God says that Sodom was the sister of Israel, it was because they were doing the same things.
Click to expand...
Prove Scripturally that this is what it is saying.
 
Since we're using words however we want to use words, "sodomy" is henceforth here defined as "doing little else to participate in a forum but initiating endless threads linking to secondhand blog posts of dubious authority."

I may create a "sodomites" group just for Ekklesian and Twisted.
 
AverageJoe said:
The Scriptures don't say anything about a man, confused about his sexuality, and believing he is emotionally and mentally that he was a woman, sticking his nipple into the mouth of a child...you're reading into Scripture what you want it to say, your preconceived notions...and that's not hermeneutically sound. Let the Bible say what it is going to say...This might fit under the Scriptural definition of perversion, but not of sodomy...it doesn't even fit under the LEGAL definition of sodomy, as I've shown.

Prove Scripturally that this is what it is saying.
Click to expand...
Doesn't Romans 1 specifically mention natural things for men and natural things for women? Is it natural for a man to try to nurse a baby?

If you had an infant that needed a babysitter and the babysitter was a man who thought he could nurse the baby, would you be OK with that?
 
voicecrying said:
Doesn't Romans 1 specifically mention natural things for men and natural things for women? Is it natural for a man to try to nurse a baby?

If you had an infant that needed a babysitter and the babysitter was a man who thought he could nurse the baby, would you be OK with that?
Click to expand...
As I've followed the conversation does not seem to be anyway that thinks it's ok. The arguing is about whether it is actually rape.
 
voicecrying said:
Doesn't Romans 1 specifically mention natural things for men and natural things for women? Is it natural for a man to try to nurse a baby?

If you had an infant that needed a babysitter and the babysitter was a man who thought he could nurse the baby, would you be OK with that?
Click to expand...
Romans does speak of natural and unnatural things for both sexes. I'm not saying it doesn't. But, with the advances and perversions of science, a man who is confused about his sexuality can have estrogen and other injections given to himself to make him grow breasts, and produce milk. I don't know if this individual had it done or not. Nobody knows, because it's not explicitly spelled out in the article. Either way, it still doesn't fit into the category of rape. Child abuse, yes...rape...no.
 
voicecrying said:
If you had an infant that needed a babysitter and the babysitter was a man who thought he could nurse the baby, would you be OK with that?
Click to expand...
No one in this conversation is claiming this is normal and healthy. The issue at hand is whether it qualifies as sexual intercourse/rape/sodomy/any of the other terms Ekklesian has dragged into it.
 
Ransom said:
No one in this conversation is claiming this is normal and healthy. The issue at hand is whether it qualifies as sexual intercourse/rape/sodomy/any of the other terms Ekklesian has dragged into it.
Click to expand...
LOL. Dragged?

What do you think He who calls a man going about in public as a woman an abomination might call pretending to nurse a child? In public?

I wouldn't say I was dragging these terms into it as much as God is pushing them.

However, I see your difficulty. The Scriptures weren't penned by the New York Times, so you may not consider them authoritative.
 
Ekklesian said:
LOL. Dragged?

What do you think He who calls a man going about in public as a woman an abomination might call pretending to nurse a child? In public?

I wouldn't say I was dragging these terms into it as much as God is pushing them.

However, I see your difficulty. The Scriptures weren't penned by the New York Times, so you may not consider them authoritative.
Click to expand...
Unless you and God are sharing the screen name Ekklesian doesn't appear to be God misusing words.
 
Ekklesian said:
However, I see your Ekklesian's difficulty. The Scriptures weren't penned by the New York Times bloggers, so you he may not consider them authoritative.
Click to expand...

There, I fixed it for you, as you appeared to be projecting.
 
tmjbog said:
Unless you and God are sharing the screen name Ekklesian doesn't appear to be God misusing words.
Click to expand...
What you will find, if you spend any time in the Scriptures, is that it is man that tends to mitigate God's pronouncements. He who IS the Word, calls things as He sees them. The recipients of His message, loving darkness rather than light because of their evil deeds, are the ones who tend to codify and limit the scope of their meanings, taking the edge off.

Thus the constant appeal to the ever-fluid state statutes.

But Christ showed us that the scope of God's laws are broad indeed. Psalm 119:96. There is no facet of the human experience that the His law does not touch.

Not mere outward acts, but the thoughts and feelings of the heart. Affection out of place is adultery. Anger and rash words are murder, and oaths are taking in vain God's name, even if fulfilled.

God likens all manner of sexual perversion to Sodom. In His indictment of Jerusalem for their appetites, He said: Your mother was a Hittite and your father an Amorite. Your older sister was Samaria, who lived north of you with her daughters, and your younger sister, who lived south of you, was Sodom with her daughters.

The case cited in the OP, the deviants are simply showing off their debauchery—like Sodom. The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Isaiah 3:9 NIV.

Their parading is sodomy. And who did they sacrifice to this debauchery? Their child. The sucking reflex of a defenseless child was exploited for their sodomy. They aren't confused. They aren't suffering from delusions. They're just so depraved that to get their rocks off they have to pervert nature. And they used their kid to do it.

I call it what it is and rock their anti-fundy world, so @AverageJoe can only retreat to state statutes to mitigate the offense, cheered on by @Ransom 's halfwitted attempts to cleverness in vain attempts to goad me :LOL: And now that I think about it, has anyone seen anything else from him. A cited article, work, study, or even Scripture reference? I have to give Joe some credit. He at least cites some evidence, even though it isn't evidence of Heaven's call on this account. Joe, is at least is genuine.

The fact that men can lactate in limited fashion was cited as evidence that the rapist was actually trying to nurse the child?

But that brings up an interesting topic for another thread.
 
Ekklesian said:
What you will find, if you spend any time in the Scriptures, is that it is man that tends to mitigate God's pronouncements. He who IS the Word, calls things as He sees them. The recipients of His message, loving darkness rather than light because of their evil deeds, are the ones who tend to codify and limit the scope of their meanings, taking the edge off.

Thus the constant appeal to the ever-fluid state statutes.

But Christ showed us that the scope of God's laws are broad indeed. Psalm 119:96. There is no facet of the human experience that the His law does not touch.

Not mere outward acts, but the thoughts and feelings of the heart. Affection out of place is adultery. Anger and rash words are murder, and oaths are taking in vain God's name, even if fulfilled.

God likens all manner of sexual perversion to Sodom. In His indictment of Jerusalem for their appetites, He said: Your mother was a Hittite and your father an Amorite. Your older sister was Samaria, who lived north of you with her daughters, and your younger sister, who lived south of you, was Sodom with her daughters.

The case cited in the OP, the deviants are simply showing off their debauchery—like Sodom. The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Isaiah 3:9 NIV.

Their parading is sodomy. And who did they sacrifice to this debauchery? Their child. The sucking reflex of a defenseless child was exploited for their sodomy. They aren't confused. They aren't suffering from delusions. They're just so depraved that to get their rocks off they have to pervert nature. And they used their kid to do it.

I call it what it is and rock their anti-fundy world, so @AverageJoe can only retreat to state statutes to mitigate the offense, cheered on by @Ransom 's halfwitted attempts to cleverness in vain attempts to goad me :LOL: And now that I think about it, has anyone seen anything else from him. A cited article, work, study, or even Scripture reference? I have to give Joe some credit. He at least cites some evidence, even though it isn't evidence of Heaven's call on this account. Joe, is at least is genuine.

The fact that men can lactate in limited fashion was cited as evidence that the rapist was actually trying to nurse the child?

But that brings up an interesting topic for another thread.
Click to expand...
You, sir, are a lying, perverted, TWISTED individual. You're ticked off because you cannot prove Scripturally that your definition of "rape" is correct. Get over it. I have shown it's NOT, both Scripturally and legally!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top