Transgender boy wins girls state wrestling title

[Recovering IFB]

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'...

First off, homosexuality is over above both sexes, as commented on in Romans. You should know that it was implied that it didn't necessarily have to include women. As much as you push your Red Letter Christianity here , where did Jesus get "Love your neighbor" from? Same part of the Law as Leviticus 18, that's where.
As for your other complaints of the law, it's not stoning a little boy, it's the parents son, read in Deuteronomy 21:20, the son is drunken and a glutton, if your 6yr old is drunk there are other issues.....
As for the other laws, you really need to study them and against the rest of Scripture, you and Rt 70 should sue HAC  for the poor education you received.
Unless otherwise noted or mentioned in Scripture later, the Law is still in effect, not that it judges the believers, but a rule for ethical life, diet law are done away with, see Acts. And the personal appearance/separation (hair trimming tattoos) due to what says that there are no longer Jew or Gentiles. A good book I recommend is "By This Standard" by Greg Bahnsen.
So before you accuse other of being arbitrary, look at what you are doing,... it's the thing you are accusing us of.

 

[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'...

Romans 1:26-27

Your point?

"Natural" is physikos - which means instinctive. II Peter also uses the term to describe false prophets, in which the ESV translates it as "creatures of instinct".

Hence, Paul is teaching these people against whom God's wrath is poured have abandoned their own instinct. For a person who is born gay to try to become heterosexual, that is "exchanged (their instinctual) natural relations for those that are contrary to nature (their instinct)".

Paul then goes on to continue his list: "They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless."

Context would indicate Paul is saying boasting and gossip and slander is just as evil as removing him/herself from personal, natural instinct.

 

[Route_70]

"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.

Perhaps you are unaware that when Paul was preaching, he had no New Testament from which to preach; so, his references were always from the Old Testament.  Here, Paul is reiterating the OT injunctions calling for the death penalty by stoning for certain detestable things, and Paul is just concurring when he says "worthy of death."

This is all very obvious to anyone who studies the Bible with an open mind, instead of the prejudicial, pre-programmed mind of the typical Christian.

So, once again:  are you in favor of the death penalty for homosexuality, which is commanded by scripture?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

First off, homosexuality is over above both sexes, as commented on in Romans. You should know that it was implied that it didn't necessarily have to include women.

Yet women were included when the command came to lying with animals but obviously left out when it came to lying with human companions.

As much as you push your Red Letter Christianity here , where did Jesus get "Love your neighbor" from? Same part of the Law as Leviticus 18, that's where.

Maybe so. Or maybe from Deuteronomy 6.

As for your other complaints of the law, it's not stoning a little boy, it's the parents son, read in Deuteronomy 21:20, the son is drunken and a glutton, if your 6yr old is drunk there are other issues.....

OK, so if you have a 16-year old son who gets drunk at a party, he is worthy to executed by stoning?

As for the other laws, you really need to study them and against the rest of Scripture, you and Rt 70 should sue HAC  for the poor education you received.

Unless otherwise noted or mentioned in Scripture later, the Law is still in effect, not that it judges the believers, but a rule for ethical life, diet law are done away with, see Acts. And the personal appearance/separation (hair trimming tattoos) due to what says that there are no longer Jew or Gentiles. A good book I recommend is "By This Standard" by Greg Bahnsen. [/quote]

Ah, so picking and choosing is normative. Just what I've been saying all along. Regardless, Leviticus 18 is about a purity code as was understood about that culture. The same principle as with the dietary laws. I see you avoided the point I made about sexual relationships with menstruating wives, which was equally prohibited in the same passage.

So before you accuse other of being arbitrary, look at what you are doing,... it's the thing you are accusing us of.

LOL! I've been saying that all along! I admit it. Do you?

So you pick and choose what you want to believe to be applicable, just like the rest of us. ("Us" includes myself.)

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?

 

[Tatterdemalion]

"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.

Perhaps you are unaware that when Paul was preaching, he had no New Testament from which to preach; so, his references were always from the Old Testament.  Here, Paul is reiterating the OT injunctions calling for the death penalty by stoning for certain detestable things, and Paul is just concurring when he says "worthy of death."

This is all very obvious to anyone who studies the Bible with an open mind, instead of the prejudicial, pre-programmed mind of the typical Christian.

So, once again:  are you in favor of the death penalty for homosexuality, which is commanded by scripture?

Of course he didn't have any New Testament scripture to go by -- he was writing it!

I don't beleive that the man who was known for persecuting and killing Christians was advocating the death penalty. He was stating the truth that we deserve death for our sins. However, you can't forget that which comes in chapter 5 of this same book:

6. For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

If we accept Jesus as our Saviour and let Him be our justification, we no longer subject to the wrath from the aforementioned "judgement from God."

 

[Route_70]

I don't beleive that the man who was known for persecuting and killing Christians was advocating the death penalty. He was stating the truth that we deserve death for our sins.

What he was stating was that those were capital offenses.  Just like we have capital punishment today, they had capital punishment then.

So, the bottom line is this:  you believe that being what you were born to be is an abomination; but a woman wearing clothing meant for a man is not.

 

[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!!

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)

How do you know whether or not I've 'grown'.
You have no clue as to how I was then or now.
And do you see any irony in your hurling that slur?
Probably not.....

As to THE point...Smellin has so rebelled against Hammond, as has Dr Hyles own daughter Linda, that they threw the baby out with the bath water and have been driven to apostasy IMO! 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

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?

Now Goner must rebuke you for your lack of growth....

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

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'...

Tarheel would point to these verses:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. (Jude 7-8)


Hammond really did a number on you....

 

[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'...

Tarheel would point to these verses:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. (Jude 7-8)

"Perversion" elsewhere is translated "strange flesh". Yep. Sodom was an immoral city. Yep. They chased "strange flesh" - that being STRANGERS, which the angels were to them. More than likely, "strange flesh" was "non-human flesh". Still no mention of consensual sex with people of the same sex.

The Greek word heteras is used in the passage, which means "another" (See Hebrews 7:13 "another tribe" for the only other time it was used). If Jude was referring to homosexuality, I would imagine the Greek would have used homoios which means "same". But then again, I'm no scholar, much less any kind of expert in Greek.

And why would you point out these verses when they accurately describe the President you voted for? Immoral: check. Chasing after strangers: I guess when you grab 'em by the privates and know who they are, even though they are married to someone else, that doesn't apply so it's gotta be OK.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

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'...

Tarheel would point to these verses:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. (Jude 7-8)

"Perversion" elsewhere is translated "strange flesh". Yep. Sodom was an immoral city. Yep. They chased "strange flesh" - that being STRANGERS, which the angels were to them. More than likely, "strange flesh" was "non-human flesh". Still no mention of consensual sex with people of the same sex.

The Greek word heteras is used in the passage, which means "another" (See Hebrews 7:13 "another tribe" for the only other time it was used). If Jude was referring to homosexuality, I would imagine the Greek would have used homoios which means "same". But then again, I'm no scholar, much less any kind of expert in Greek.

And why would you point out these verses when they accurately describe the President you voted for? Immoral: check. Chasing after strangers: I guess when you grab 'em by the privates and know who they are, even though they are married to someone else, that doesn't apply so it's gotta be OK.

Again Elmer uses his principle of hermeneutics:
Scripture doesn't say what it says...but what I say it says.

And back to Twump...who's is still Pwesident last time I checked.
Be vewy, vewy afwaid...

 

[Recovering IFB]

SC, let me ask you. Do you know of any historical writers(from orthodoxy) who believed whatnyou are espousing?

 

[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)

How do you know whether or not I've 'grown'.
You have no clue as to how I was then or now.
And do you see any irony in your hurling that slur?
Probably not.....

As to THE point...Smellin has so rebelled against Hammond, as has Dr Hyles own daughter Linda, that they threw the baby out with the bath water and have been driven to apostasy IMO! 

I didn't say that you hadn't grown I was making the point that I could say it based on what I see here on the forum. You really are the one missing the irony. You don't even know that SC rebelled against Hammond. He may have come to the same conclusions without ever being in Hammond. Linda may have wound up with the same beliefs with or without Hammond. Goes back to there are plenty of Liberty students who have gone in similar directions as SC and Linda and how can you or I know if it was their experience at Liberty or where they would gone anyhow?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Goner: I didn't say that you hadn't grown I was making the point that I could say it based on what I see here on the forum. You really are the one missing the irony. You don't even know that SC rebelled against Hammond. He may have come to the same conclusions without ever being in Hammond. Linda may have wound up with the same beliefs with or without Hammond. Goes back to there are plenty of Liberty students who have gone in similar directions as SC and Linda and how can you or I know if it was their experience at Liberty or where they would gone anyhow?

And you only know me from the Forum, and there have been many times I have stated that I treat the FFF like the mafia bosses treat their activities...."it's not personal, it's just (fff) business". The irony is that you offer a backhanded personal insult to me as you rebuke me for the same offense. Irony or hypocrisy? I only have an opinion....

As to Liberty causing students to become apostates, I'm not aware of any personally. In my personal experience with Liberty (since the 70's) I don't recall anyone being bitter over their Liberty experience. I'm sure there must be some, though. On the other hand, I have no personal experience with Hammond yet I'm know personally many who are resentful of their Hammond experience....most, not all, are on the fff. Smellin is the fff poster boy for that....IN MY OPINION!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

SC, let me ask you. Do you know of any historical writers(from orthodoxy) who believed whatnyou are espousing?

What makes orthodoxy correct? Did not the Pharisees of the NT embrace orthodoxy?

 

[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'...

Tarheel would point to these verses:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. (Jude 7-8)

"Perversion" elsewhere is translated "strange flesh". Yep. Sodom was an immoral city. Yep. They chased "strange flesh" - that being STRANGERS, which the angels were to them. More than likely, "strange flesh" was "non-human flesh". Still no mention of consensual sex with people of the same sex.

The Greek word heteras is used in the passage, which means "another" (See Hebrews 7:13 "another tribe" for the only other time it was used). If Jude was referring to homosexuality, I would imagine the Greek would have used homoios which means "same". But then again, I'm no scholar, much less any kind of expert in Greek.

And why would you point out these verses when they accurately describe the President you voted for? Immoral: check. Chasing after strangers: I guess when you grab 'em by the privates and know who they are, even though they are married to someone else, that doesn't apply so it's gotta be OK.

Again Elmer uses his principle of hermeneutics:
Scripture doesn't say what it says...but what I say it says.

In reality, YOU are the one telling what the Scripture doesn't say. You claim the sin of Sodom was consensual, same-sex relationships and there is no biblical evidence whatsoever this is what Sodomy - the sin of Sodom means.

Yet even John MacArthur agrees with my above hermeneutic concerning Jude:

And the final of the four that describes their sin is also in verse 7, "In the same way as Sodom and Gomorrah they indulged in gross immorality, and went after strange flesh." Went after heteros, went after different flesh. They went after creatures outside their realm. It's an interesting twist. The men of Sodom lusted after the angels. The angels lusted after men. The men of Sodom wanted to commit sexual sin with angels that appeared in male form. And the angels committed horrendous acts of lust with human flesh.

So the case seems clear. Whatever these angels did, they fell from their lofty position and that could certainly refer to the original fall. They moved out of their normal spiritual domain. They came all the way down to engage in sexual immorality with beings of a different nature.

Source

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

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'...

Tarheel would point to these verses:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. (Jude 7-8)

"Perversion" elsewhere is translated "strange flesh". Yep. Sodom was an immoral city. Yep. They chased "strange flesh" - that being STRANGERS, which the angels were to them. More than likely, "strange flesh" was "non-human flesh". Still no mention of consensual sex with people of the same sex.

The Greek word heteras is used in the passage, which means "another" (See Hebrews 7:13 "another tribe" for the only other time it was used). If Jude was referring to homosexuality, I would imagine the Greek would have used homoios which means "same". But then again, I'm no scholar, much less any kind of expert in Greek.

And why would you point out these verses when they accurately describe the President you voted for? Immoral: check. Chasing after strangers: I guess when you grab 'em by the privates and know who they are, even though they are married to someone else, that doesn't apply so it's gotta be OK.

Again Elmer uses his principle of hermeneutics:
Scripture doesn't say what it says...but what I say it says.

In reality, YOU are the one telling what the Scripture doesn't say. You claim the sin of Sodom was consensual, same-sex relationships and there is no biblical evidence whatsoever this is what Sodomy - the sin of Sodom means.

Yet even John MacArthur agrees with my above hermeneutic concerning Jude:

And the final of the four that describes their sin is also in verse 7, "In the same way as Sodom and Gomorrah they indulged in gross immorality, and went after strange flesh." Went after heteros, went after different flesh. They went after creatures outside their realm. It's an interesting twist. The men of Sodom lusted after the angels. The angels lusted after men. The men of Sodom wanted to commit sexual sin with angels that appeared in male form. And the angels committed horrendous acts of lust with human flesh.

So the case seems clear. Whatever these angels did, they fell from their lofty position and that could certainly refer to the original fall. They moved out of their normal spiritual domain. They came all the way down to engage in sexual immorality with beings of a different nature.

Source

MacArthur is your source for truth now? Here ya go....

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-449/homosexuality-and-the-campaign-for-immorality


But here is the actual source for the contorting of Scripture you believe:
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Jude.html

 

[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'...

Tarheel would point to these verses:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. (Jude 7-8)

"Perversion" elsewhere is translated "strange flesh". Yep. Sodom was an immoral city. Yep. They chased "strange flesh" - that being STRANGERS, which the angels were to them. More than likely, "strange flesh" was "non-human flesh". Still no mention of consensual sex with people of the same sex.

The Greek word heteras is used in the passage, which means "another" (See Hebrews 7:13 "another tribe" for the only other time it was used). If Jude was referring to homosexuality, I would imagine the Greek would have used homoios which means "same". But then again, I'm no scholar, much less any kind of expert in Greek.

And why would you point out these verses when they accurately describe the President you voted for? Immoral: check. Chasing after strangers: I guess when you grab 'em by the privates and know who they are, even though they are married to someone else, that doesn't apply so it's gotta be OK.

Again Elmer uses his principle of hermeneutics:
Scripture doesn't say what it says...but what I say it says.

In reality, YOU are the one telling what the Scripture doesn't say. You claim the sin of Sodom was consensual, same-sex relationships and there is no biblical evidence whatsoever this is what Sodomy - the sin of Sodom means.

Yet even John MacArthur agrees with my above hermeneutic concerning Jude:

And the final of the four that describes their sin is also in verse 7, "In the same way as Sodom and Gomorrah they indulged in gross immorality, and went after strange flesh." Went after heteros, went after different flesh. They went after creatures outside their realm. It's an interesting twist. The men of Sodom lusted after the angels. The angels lusted after men. The men of Sodom wanted to commit sexual sin with angels that appeared in male form. And the angels committed horrendous acts of lust with human flesh.

So the case seems clear. Whatever these angels did, they fell from their lofty position and that could certainly refer to the original fall. They moved out of their normal spiritual domain. They came all the way down to engage in sexual immorality with beings of a different nature.

Source

MacArthur is your source for truth now? Here ya go....

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-449/homosexuality-and-the-campaign-for-immorality

No, he's not my source of truth. My point is you make fun of my conclusion on that particular passage yet an anti-gay theologian agreed with my analysis on that particular passage.

But then again, spin it how you will. That is how you roll.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

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'...

Tarheel would point to these verses:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. (Jude 7-8)

"Perversion" elsewhere is translated "strange flesh". Yep. Sodom was an immoral city. Yep. They chased "strange flesh" - that being STRANGERS, which the angels were to them. More than likely, "strange flesh" was "non-human flesh". Still no mention of consensual sex with people of the same sex.

The Greek word heteras is used in the passage, which means "another" (See Hebrews 7:13 "another tribe" for the only other time it was used). If Jude was referring to homosexuality, I would imagine the Greek would have used homoios which means "same". But then again, I'm no scholar, much less any kind of expert in Greek.

And why would you point out these verses when they accurately describe the President you voted for? Immoral: check. Chasing after strangers: I guess when you grab 'em by the privates and know who they are, even though they are married to someone else, that doesn't apply so it's gotta be OK.

Again Elmer uses his principle of hermeneutics:
Scripture doesn't say what it says...but what I say it says.

In reality, YOU are the one telling what the Scripture doesn't say. You claim the sin of Sodom was consensual, same-sex relationships and there is no biblical evidence whatsoever this is what Sodomy - the sin of Sodom means.

Yet even John MacArthur agrees with my above hermeneutic concerning Jude:

And the final of the four that describes their sin is also in verse 7, "In the same way as Sodom and Gomorrah they indulged in gross immorality, and went after strange flesh." Went after heteros, went after different flesh. They went after creatures outside their realm. It's an interesting twist. The men of Sodom lusted after the angels. The angels lusted after men. The men of Sodom wanted to commit sexual sin with angels that appeared in male form. And the angels committed horrendous acts of lust with human flesh.

So the case seems clear. Whatever these angels did, they fell from their lofty position and that could certainly refer to the original fall. They moved out of their normal spiritual domain. They came all the way down to engage in sexual immorality with beings of a different nature.

Source

MacArthur is your source for truth now? Here ya go....

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-449/homosexuality-and-the-campaign-for-immorality

No, he's not my source of truth. My point is you make fun of my conclusion on that particular passage yet an anti-gay theologian agreed with my analysis on that particular passage.

But then again, spin it how you will. That is how you roll.

Here is the source for the drivel thou believest:
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Jude.html

Scripture doesn't say what it says. Scripture (a multitude of OT And NT passages aside) really says what Smellin and the "Gay christians" tell you it says.

Be vewy, vewy afwaid...

 

[Recovering IFB]

SC, let me ask you. Do you know of any historical writers(from orthodoxy) who believed whatnyou are espousing?

What makes orthodoxy correct? Did not the Pharisees of the NT embrace orthodoxy?

Because we have the Words of God and I know you reject most of it, but even from OT onwards, where is it then? Can you even show one? If you or Matthew Vines or Graham Coddrington could just show one verse where Christ or the disciples gave approval for it, please show it?

I ask you, if Jesus was ok with it, why did he destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?