It's no guarantee that your kids will become Christians but it's better than the alternative (Pr 22:6, Ac 16:1).
Having kids is a risk but God is very pro-risk.
Sodomite admits she's out to recruit schoolkids
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
It's no guarantee that your kids will become Christians but it's better than the alternative (Pr 22:6, Ac 16:1).
Having kids is a risk but God is very pro-risk.
No (Heb 10:25).
Not as you do (Pr 4:23, Phil 4:8, Eph 5:12).
:yawn: 2 Ti 1:7
shagster01
New member
Ok, so how does this lesbian fall under that definition? Either way, it's a stupid term used by musterion
Really, you cant see how a word derived biblically from a place rife with same sex relations, could mean same sex relations?
Or that (as most scripture is written directed at men via prose used) it also applies to women - ie mankind contains women as well....
Then there is this which is abundantly clear on it:
Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature
shagster01
New member
You yourself posted that it was restricted to anal sex in the bible.
Sorry, you are unable to read.
shagster01
New member
Go back and read that spot from Wikipedia that you quoted...
You go back and see the phrase 'commonly' used, that is not an end all phrase. (you *could* actually go there and read the entire article if you wanted actual knowledge)
You guys are hilarious, you like to say that fundamentalists are strict literalists, yet you guys take a literal extreme to such an extent that you allow for no possible context other than that. (you would get a solid F in college literature)
I am excluded from mankind, because i am a female, and since its called mankind, it cant include women.
See how idiotic that sounds and what your stance is?
shagster01
New member
I read that page before you even posted it, which is where I got the info that it is used as a definition for any sexual practice that does not cause procreation. My post that came from that page originally is what you started arguing against.
Do you want me to read it again, but skip over the parts you want to argue?
Then you knew that the modern definition isnt the biblical one, and objected to what you knew what was false to begin with, thanks for admitting your lack of integrity.
shagster01
New member
Yes, I knew the modern definition includes any sexual practice that doesn't cause procreation, which is exactly what I said and you argued against. Now go back and read that post and tell me, according to your link, where I was wrong.
You can admit I had a valid point, or continue running in circles. Your choice.
Um hello, no one is interested in the modern definition when we call gays sodomites, we use the biblical definition, you have no point, the modern definition is invalid to the actual original definition and who it was referring to.
Im sorry, i forgot its pointless to discuss anything with you. My bad.
shagster01
New member
The biblical definition is "commonly restricted to" anal sex. You posted that yourself.
shagster01
New member
Absolutely disgusting.
What annoys me about this is that this is a clear overstep on the part of the State. Moral education should be left to the parents and religious authorities.
If any moral education at all goes on in the schools, it should be limited only to those matters which are 1. universally accepted and 2. absolutely necessary to inculcate respect for the laws.
I have no problem with the State telling children that they shouldn't ridicule, bully or otherwise beat the tar out of people for living devious lifestyles (or for any other reason; passing judgment on the behavior of people and executing sentence belongs, on this side of eternity, to the State, not to private individuals). But this? This is just an overreach.
What annoys me about this is that this is a clear overstep on the part of the State. Moral education should be left to the parents and religious authorities.
If any moral education at all goes on in the schools, it should be limited only to those matters which are 1. universally accepted and 2. absolutely necessary to inculcate respect for the laws.
I have no problem with the State telling children that they shouldn't ridicule, bully or otherwise beat the tar out of people for living devious lifestyles (or for any other reason; passing judgment on the behavior of people and executing sentence belongs, on this side of eternity, to the State, not to private individuals). But this? This is just an overreach.
com·mon·ly
ˈkämənlē/
adverb
adverb: commonly
very often; frequently.
Does very often or frequently mean always? No, it means most often (not always) restricted to that. In other words it would apply to other forms of gay sex. (Since the word itself stems from the sexual behavior of those in Sodom. Put down the reefer.
Or look like an idiot, who cannot understand that mankind includes women even though it has the word man in it. (We know you are pretending not to get it, no one wants to think you are dumb and youve already admitted you know what the biblical definition is, yet act like you dont, which shows your integrity level.)
shagster01
New member
Can you show me a scriptural reference to "sodomy" meaning lesbianism that doesn't also include heterosexual acts that don't lead to procreation?
I already did.