Trump Is A Knob

[ok doser]

... don't cha just hate it Aaron?

do you have any idea how retarded you sound when you do that?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Please don't bad mouth Patrick. I know I've always found him a good dude.

Aaron and I go back a long ways here on TOL. Perhaps my fondest memory is when he emailed my late pastor asking if he thought homosexuality should be recriminalized. One of his many sock puppets should be reporting me anytime soon now, so I better make this post quick.

Otherwise, I recall some years ago almost feeling like I wanted to throw something at the TV set, or do an Elvis shoot the tube, and this was over a minister I much admire and will not name, but he gave a sermon with, as if, an antimatter black hole in it, using Luke 17:3-4 his teaching text. I could not believe what I was hearing: he did not once mention repentance in his entire sermon, and he read those verses entirely without the repent references. This is because his theory was God’s unconditional love, hence that we must willy nilly forgive all evil

Can you believe that the filthy moral degenerate who was elected as President of the United States stated that he never felt the need to ask for God's forgiveness, i.e. to repent?

I don't know about you WLJ, but I couldn't sit in a church where the pastor (Norman Vincent Peale) said things like this:

"It’s not necessary to be born again. You have your way to God, I have mine. I found eternal peace in a Shinto shrine … I’ve been to Shinto shrines and God is everywhere. … Christ is one of the ways! God is everywhere.”
https://www.challies.com/articles/the-false-teachers-norman-vincent-peale

Disgusting huh?

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Aaron and I go back a long ways here on TOL. Perhaps my fondest memory is when he emailed my late pastor asking if he thought homosexuality should be recriminalized. One of his many sock puppets should be reporting me anytime soon now, so I better make this post quick.



Can you believe that the filthy moral degenerate who was elected as President of the United States stated that he never felt the need to ask for God's forgiveness, i.e. to repent?

I don't know about you WLJ, but I couldn't sit in a church where the pastor (Norman Vincent Peale) said things like this:

"It’s not necessary to be born again. You have your way to God, I have mine. I found eternal peace in a Shinto shrine … I’ve been to Shinto shrines and God is everywhere. … Christ is one of the ways! God is everywhere.”
https://www.challies.com/articles/the-false-teachers-norman-vincent-peale

Disgusting huh?

Don't know about this legislating morality stuff, but yes, quite disgusting. I also considered the I don't need to repent comment in completely objective terms, that is in the totality of God's word, as if my own Christian experience weren't enough, and coming to the conclusion that's something a real Christian would not say. But, also, I believe nothing a campaigning politician promises, ever: the truth will be in their actions, the fruit they bear, not lip service, and, for my part, I remain very skeptical, expect a fish out of water, flopping around for the Satanic machine, the truth be known, one can only hope flopping less than Hillary. History sort of makes you that way, doesn't it? As to a lot of charlatan preachers out there, it's inexplicable how there are still flies on earth, one would think all the maggots gagged.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Don't know about this legislating morality stuff, but yes, quite disgusting.

Can you believe it, thou shalt not murder (the unborn) and thou shalt not sodomize whathisname were once on the legislative books? That legislating morality stuff is so...Old Testament huh?

I also considered the I don't need to repent comment in completely objective terms, that is in the totality of God's word, as if my own Christian experience weren't enough, and coming to the conclusion that's something a real Christian would not say. But, also, I believe nothing a campaigning politician promises, ever: the truth will be in their actions, the fruit they bear, not lip service, and, for my part, I remain very skeptical, expect a fish out of water, flopping around for the Satanic machine, the truth be known, one can only hope flopping less than Hillary. History sort of makes you that way, doesn't it? As to a lot of charlatan preachers out there, it's inexplicable how there are still flies on earth, one would think all the maggots gagged.

Flopping around less than Hillary? So where in Holy Scripture does it say that the (supposed) lesser of two evils is acceptable when it comes to electing political leaders?

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Flopping around less than Hillary? So where in Holy Scripture does it say that the (supposed) lesser of two evils is acceptable when it comes to electing political leaders?

You poor babe! Here it’s 2017, and you’re actually expecting an acceptable choice. Look, mister, if you want at shot at those roses, we only carry horse or chicken manure. Of course, like everything on the tube, you won’t find that in the Bible, either.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Flopping around less than Hillary? So where in Holy Scripture does it say that the (supposed) lesser of two evils is acceptable when it comes to electing political leaders?

You poor babe! Here it’s 2017, and you’re actually expecting an acceptable choice. Look, mister, if you want at shot at those roses, we only carry horse or chicken manure. Of course, like everything on the tube, you won’t find that in the Bible, either.

LOL...just like during the primaries, you fail to condemn the moral degenerate Donald Trump.

Holy Scripture is filled with verses and passages where God sets the standard for civil leaders (and the selection of civil leaders). As shown with your failure to provide an answer to my above challenge, there is nothing that says that those who embrace evil (which Donald Trump does through his strong stance on LGBTQ supposed rights) should be elected into political office.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Flopping around less than Hillary? So where in Holy Scripture does it say that the (supposed) lesser of two evils is acceptable when it comes to electing political leaders?



LOL...just like during the primaries, you fail to condemn the moral degenerate Donald Trump.

Holy Scripture is filled with verses and passages where God sets the standard for civil leaders (and the selection of civil leaders). As shown with your failure to provide an answer to my above challenge, there is nothing that says that those who embrace evil (which Donald Trump does through his strong stance on LGBTQ supposed rights) should be elected into political office.

Now, now. I don’t know if you’re trying to lay that on me, but my only stance, ever, was that Hillary should not be elected. As to Trump, everybody I know, including myself, has been a moral degenerate to some degree, some of us repentant, hence Christians, and most all Christians at different stages in God’s plan. These general truths make me, personally, more reserved to declare any absolute moral degeneracy in another human being not exhibiting arch criminality, real or spiritual. But I have never been anything but anti-Hillary and anti-liberal, actually don’t think of Trump as a conservative, today even moreso, have never led a cheer for Trump, at most defending things he said that were true during the campaign, but I’m still out here swimming around, did not take any bait.

The bottom line, I have never had any other mentality than talk is cheap, been skeptical, we shall see, no conviction beyond it ain’t Hillary, this as far as I’ve been willing to go in the enthusiasm department. I’m not really a partisan, political animal in the first place. Show me a moral Democrat, I realize this an oxymoron these days, but just hypothetically, and I’d favor that person. I would also add I’ve seen nobody I would consider righteous and honorable in a Biblical sense, to where it can be taken too seriously, this lack of choice we speak of. It just is, could whine about it all day long, but it was either Hillary or Trump. Glad it’s not Frick, let’s see what Frack does about all you get, but don’t blame me: I popped out of my Momma’s womb and wound-up in this mess far as I’m concerned, anymore.

Would add that, lashing out at Trump during the campaign would be lending support to Hillary, Einstein. To at least some practical extent, the enemy of your enemy is your friend. And it’s not wrong to say, “I like this guy more, who at least doesn’t beat his wife,” as it were.

 

[DavidK]

I think that you are very forgiving towards some of them.....

I could interpret that to mean that a lot of people haven't bothered to work out what they really do believe in...?

Possibly. Thought I expect if you could talk some down from whatever emotional state and point out that you both believe Jesus is the only begotten son, come in flesh, crucified for our sins and risen, there'd be a concession that you are both believers. But usually the conversation has ended at this point.

Now just suppose a Unitarian popped up and said ,'Hello!'......

Sure, there are lines that cross the salvific issues. But it's pretty common to see people spouting off "You're not even saved!" over issues like free will/predestination or even the pre vs. post tribulation rapture of the saints.

Honestly, you are too kind to some.... And what about attitudes towards..... say..... Catholics?

I've known Catholics who clearly aren't saved, and others who, as far as I can tell from discussion, are. Then again, I could say that about a lot of protestants, too.

I'm sure that some varying Creeds can cope with each other's beliefs, but others...... Wow!

Certainly. I wasn't trying to imply that anyone who claims the name "Christian" is saved. Just think that "You're not even saved!" gets thrown around a lot.

 

[DavidK]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Perhaps it's those who are attempting to redefine the doctrine of Christianity that should be set straight instead of adding a modifier to the word "Christian"?

I haven't had any luck in another thread when asking people to come forward and defend the doctrine of the 'inclusive' (i.e. pro homosexual, pro abortion) Metropolitan Community Church.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ized!-Part-4&p=4976958&viewfull=1#post4976958
http://mccchurch.org/

Since they call themselves a Christian Church David, through the use of Holy Scripture, you should have no problem showing that they are.

I think you missed my point. I'm not saying the liberal, main stream denominations are biblical.

I was saying you're not going to have much luck getting everyone to stop calling themselves Christians who aren't biblical, so for clarity it helps for those of us who are biblical to add a modifier to distinguish ourselves.

It's kind of like the whole academic attempt to define "racism" as the disenfranchisement of minority races by the majority. They can try all they like, but outside of their academic circles, most of the English-speaking world uses "racism" to mean treating someone poorly because of their race. So academics keep screaming that it's impossible for someone of the majority race to be racist, and everyone else scratches their heads because the common definition doesn't support that.

You want non-biblical churches to stop calling themselves "Christian" because we shouldn't have to label ourselves "conservative Christians". It's just not going to happen, so we keep the modifier for clarity.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I think you missed my point. I'm not saying the liberal, main stream denominations are biblical.

I was saying you're not going to have much luck getting everyone to stop calling themselves Christians who aren't biblical,...

Two people acknowledging the truth (you and me) is a good start.

Spread the word.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

..Would add that, lashing out at Trump during the campaign would be lending support to Hillary, Einstein. To at least some practical extent, the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

An enemy of God is never my friend. Need we go over the immoral things that Donald Trump promotes? I thought not.

And it’s not wrong to say, “I like this guy more, who at least doesn’t beat his wife as much”

Fixed that analogy for ya.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

No, in the spiritual sense you're preaching to the choir. I can't argue an approach from the moral end, and, alright then, thanks for the fix, though I wasn't thinking in such black and white terms. If you're going to look at it from the view of friend of the world versus friend of God, it is, indeed, rather bleak, on the other hand this nothing new, doesn't seem appropriate to have lofty expectations, when Jesus isn't yet ruling on earth. What did you expect? It's too long an analysis, but people don't even really want to hear the truth in politics. The general scheme is promise people the moon, at no or less cost, promise this nebulous greatness, and blame all negatives on somebody else, especially your opponent. People want their ears tickled. So, how are you going to get truth from that, somebody honest, when people wouldn't vote for the truth, which is not wholly pretty? In other words, the system encourages deception, rewards it.

 

[eider]

While I normally don't waste this much time on rainbow flag wavers, I have to admit that I am having fun watching you trying to defend something that doesn't exist:

"liberal Christianity".

While I don't normally waste this much time with fanatical bigots, I have to admit I am having fun watching you trying to defend one single law out of 517, the others of which you have obviously ignored. Amazing!

Since you once again refused to answer my above question, I'll close with Matthew 19:4-6 where Jesus talks about His institution of marriage:

4*He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5*It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6*So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”

You have not quoted a Law! You have quoted a privilege! You do not know the difference. If it was a LAW then Jesus Himself would have followed it.
Now, for your further education, here is the law connecxted to Matthew 19....... all of it, complete...
But you don't rant on fanatically about those who break this law, beneath.
Matthew{19:4} And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, {19:5} And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? {19:6} Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. {19:7} They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? {19:8} He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. {19:9} And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth
commit adultery.

What shall we call those who mock God's Word and engage in and promote things that He abhors like homosexuality?

You poor misguided person. God made the Laws of Moses to strengthen, protect, cohese, secure, make safe and keep healthy the Israelites. Every single law helped to do this. Back in trhe day the punishments for breeches had to be extreme or sickness, weakness and collapse would creep in. You have decided in your wayward thinking and unloving prejudice to take ONE of those laws and mangle it into your own twisted mindset. Come into the light and find the truth, that Jesus's guidance, rules and laws never mentioned the law which you cling to as a lost cause. His answers to the Pharisees were always clever, more clever than you ever realised.

While they are desperately in need of spiritual and often times psychological guidance, how about until they seek such help we call them what they are:

Perverts.

No.... the way in which you have discarded hundreds of laws and clung to just one is surely a perversion of the laws of Jesus. I hope that one day you will see the light of understanding and love for all.

Have a gay ole day eider and remember that you're always welcome to come fly the rainbow flag of death over in this thread anytime:

Have a good day yourself, you Cop Out Christian , and remember that God sent down 613 laws (less the 96 sacrificial) but you know and follow only one. How do you think that keeping that one law will get you to your heaven?

 

[eider]

Possibly. Thought I expect if you could talk some down from whatever emotional state and point out that you both believe Jesus is the only begotten son, come in flesh, crucified for our sins and risen, there'd be a concession that you are both believers. But usually the conversation has ended at this point.

Thankyou for your reply.
I think that you are far too kind. I cannot perceive that it could be possible for 'Christians' who exhibit any extremist hatreds or prejudices to be received...... just can't see it.

But please don't imagine for a second that I think that I am saved...... I do not have certitude, no Sir.

Sure, there are lines that cross the salvific issues. But it's pretty common to see people spouting off "You're not even saved!" over issues like free will/predestination or even the pre vs. post tribulation rapture of the saints.

The 'You're not saved!' crowd are truly amazing. As if they will sit upon some bench to judge!

I've known Catholics who clearly aren't saved, and others who, as far as I can tell from discussion, are. Then again, I could say that about a lot of protestants, too.

The first shall be last, and the last shal be first.

Let me guess: Some people can spend a lifetime in preparation to lose all in their last breaths, and some can do nothing all through life, only to be saved in those last seconds.
What do you think?

Certainly. I wasn't trying to imply that anyone who claims the name "Christian" is saved. Just think that "You're not even saved!" gets thrown around a lot.

Oh, that is only chucked by the lost, methinks.
I think that folks can be saved who never heard the name of Yeshua BarYosef. After all, the name Jesus was not printed until about the 16th century, but folks just forget such things.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
While I normally don't waste this much time on rainbow flag wavers, I have to admit that I am having fun watching you trying to defend something that doesn't exist:

"liberal Christianity".

While I don't normally waste this much time with fanatical bigots, I have to admit I am having fun watching you trying to defend one single law out of 517, the others of which you have obviously ignored. Amazing!

It's standard LGBTQ etiquette to call someone who defends Judeo-Christian doctrine a "homophobe". Since you've not followed LGBTQ etiquette, it's back to LGBTQ training school for you.

Regarding sexual sins (fornication, adultery, homosexuality, incest, polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia).

God found the subject important enough that He set the standard for human sexuality early on in the Bible (Genesis), and as shown in my earlier posts, He continued to talk about it in the New Testament.

God destroyed cities and nations failed because of it, and for those who engage in unnatural sex acts, He brought forth diseases that would let them know that they're doing wrong.

Like all defenders and promoters of immoral behavior, your issue is with Him, not me.

 

[eider]

It's standard LGBTQ etiquette to call someone who defends Judeo-Christian doctrine a "homophobe". Since you've not followed LGBTQ etiquette, it's back to LGBTQ training school for you.

What ignorance!
Why, you can't even get that right.
I don't call a person prejudiced about transvestites a homophobe! Transvestites can be heterosexual!
My, but you've lived in a tiny little cocoon for some time, methinks.

I don't think that you are married.

Regarding sexual sins (fornication, adultery, homosexuality, incest, polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia).
God found the subject important enough that He set the standard for human sexuality early on in the Bible (Genesis), and as shown in my earlier posts, He continued to talk about it in the New Testament.

Please........ Just keep to the Laws of Moses, eh? You'd need to be thinking of Leviticus 18:22, which is just as outdated as Leviticus 18:19 if a woman so chooses. Note that it reads 'a woman' and not 'a wife'.
I'm more interested in Leviticus 11:41 really, which was just as important a law as any others, back in the day. Don't eat worms/larvae found in fruit. See? Breaches of these laws could cause sickness, or spread illness through the whole tribe, just as it did with the Canaanite nations..... which is why any of its folks had to be put to death Deut 20:16. It was all about protecting and keeping well the Israelites.
You've turned the Laws of Moses into 'the Gateway to Hell' when in fact their abuse was a gateway to sickness and weakness.

................. and for those who engage in unnatural sex acts, He brought forth diseases that would let them know that they're doing wrong.

See? You're learning, slowly. But that was back in the day.

Like all defenders and promoters of immoral behavior, your issue is with Him, not me.

I don't have any issues with Him. He may well have with me of course, but then He may well have issues with..... you, for breaking his first rule! If you need me to tell you his first rule, just ask.

 

[ok doser]

I don't have any issues with Him. He may well have with me ....

He doesn't expect us to be perfect, merely perfected


in Christ

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Regarding sexual sins (fornication, adultery, homosexuality, incest, polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia).
God found the subject important enough that He set the standard for human sexuality early on in the Bible (Genesis), and as shown in my earlier posts, He continued to talk about it in the New Testament.

Please........ Just keep to the Laws of Moses, eh? You'd need to be thinking of Leviticus 18:22, which is just as outdated as Leviticus 18:19 if a woman so chooses. Note that it reads 'a woman' and not 'a wife'.
I'm more interested in Leviticus 11:41 really, which was just as important a law as any others, back in the day. Don't eat worms/larvae found in fruit. See? Breaches of these laws could cause sickness, or spread illness through the whole tribe, just as it did with the Canaanite nations..... which is why any of its folks had to be put to death Deut 20:16. It was all about protecting and keeping well the Israelites.
You've turned the Laws of Moses into 'the Gateway to Hell' when in fact their abuse was a gateway to sickness and weakness...

(Pssst, you took Deuteronomy 20 totally out of context, but that's what your kind does:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+20&version=NIV )

The LGBTQ movement just loves to use Jewish dietary laws when talking about homosexuality, in fact I noticed that you use the lame attempt at an argument in several posts (for some reason I just don't compare eating a nice shrimp dish with the disgusting act of homosexuality, but hey, that's me).

You're not the first LGBTQ'er to use it, you won't be the last.

I pulled this old post up from my "Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3" thread:

Dear ‘God hates Shrimp’ people: the menu has been updated

Feb. 11, 2015

You’ve probably heard the shrimp retort a 1000 times from gay christians and their liberal religious supporters. Its their gotcha answer to the so called “clobber passages” (bible scriptures they hate and wish didn’t exist). The major contention argument is that Christians are “cherry-picking” which scriptures to apply to their condemnation of homosexuality while ignoring others; therefore their prejudice is exposed and not a concern for what the Bible actually says. So obsessed are gays with shrimpology, they even have a whole website dedicated to it.
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Joe Decker and Ryland Sanders (now deceased) take ownership for the site. Decker and Sanders try to laugh it off by saying its a “parody” site, but they are dead serious...

Shrimpology is a major rebuttal tenet of the gay activist orthodoxy. They believe in it just as strongly as they do Stonewall...

We get it that most gays think Christians who oppose homosexuality on biblical grounds are hypocrites. Its a given, especially when one’s pet sin is being challenged. And homosexuality is THE pet sin of the gay movement so its understandable they would take umbrage at any challenge that what they do sexually is an abomination to God.

But there been some updates that the shrimpologists may not be aware of. Both of the menu updates are from Jesus.

And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Mark 7:18-23 ...

Here’s the main points of the update, summarized:

1. Jesus issued the update over 2,000 years ago. He said its not what type of food a man eats that defiles him, its the wickedness in his heart.

2. In Acts, Christ tells Peter, his main Apostle to the Jews, via a vision that God when God declares something clean, it is clean. The analogy of the food was a very powerful one for Peter an Apostle to the Jews who couldn't eat banned foods.

3. Twice, we have clear evidence from Jesus himself (not a third party) that food is not the issue and what food was unclean is now cleared for consumption.

4. There is no evidence, no words, nothing implied, anywhere in the New Testament absolving homosexuality as clean or acceptable to any person. It is still unclean, abominable and unacceptable to God in every context. No law or decree about homosexuality was rescinded by Christ except that instead of deserved death, now the homosexual was welcome to come to God and find freedom from his sins.

Having said that, please stop denying yourself the deliciousness of some cajun fried shrimp or some incredible shrimp scampi because you didn’t get the update memo.

God doesn’t hate shrimp, He hates sin.
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ized!-Part-3&p=4218930&viewfull=1#post4218930

There are 200-300 daily viewers that would love to see our discussion in my "Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 4" thread eider, are you sure you don't want to come over and play?

 

[eider]

He doesn't expect us to be perfect, merely perfected
in Christ

Hi.....
Sure..... nobody is perfect, and nobody is perfected 'in Christ', imo.

Here's a challenge, if you want one that is.....
Can you write a description of the term 'Perfected in Christ' in one paragragh?
If a child cannot understand it then that would be a failure, I reckon.....

If, somehow, you can, then it might be a great idea to precis that para down even further into a few words which anybody can grasp.

 

[eider]

(Pssst, you took Deuteronomy 20 totally out of context, but that's what your kind does:

No I didn't. Please don't stuff your Instutionalised Indoctrinations at me. I know what it meant.

The LGBTQ movement just loves to use Jewish dietary laws when talking about homosexuality, in fact I noticed that you use the lame attempt at an argument in several posts (for some reason I just don't compare eating a nice shrimp dish with the disgusting act of homosexuality, but hey, that's me).

Yeah..... Heh... that's you!
Ha ha! So that one is a Law for Jews only, but Leviticus 18:22 is 'Bingo....abracadabra' for ....... aCultureWarrior's personal mania...?

OK, let's use a 'non-dietary' law: Deuteronomy 15:11..... so you shall preserve and support the poor of the USA, especially in the coming 'Redundancy' caused by IT and Robotics.
Good..... at least we've cleared that up.

Here's another important Law for the protection of the Israelites from illhealth Deut.23:13-15.....
Oh!..... doesn't that one apply to aCultureWarrior? If not I wouldn't want to use your facilities, inside or out!!

We get it that most gays think Christians who oppose homosexuality on biblical grounds are hypocrites.

Not just Gays....... anybody with a heart and a brain will think the above.

..... what they do sexually is an abomination to God.

Jresus didn't say that in His New Covenant.
But He established New Law and re-established Old Law, and I doubt that you keep 'em all. Tiome to look to yourself.

But there been some updates that the shrimpologists may not be aware of. Both of the menu updates are from Jesus.
And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Mark 7:18-23 ...

Ha ha! And you accused me of misquoting 'out of context' earlier!
How totally daft!
If your strangled rubbishy use of the above is correct, then your country can repeal all its drug laws!!

I like you! You might be a maniac about your fanatical hatred of adulterers, transgenders etc, but....... I like you!

1. Jesus issued the update over 2,000 years ago. He said its not what type of food a man eats that defiles him, its the wickedness in his heart.

Love it! I never clicked that some Christioans will duck in to and out of the Old Covenant to suit their needs. They ALSO can duck from Spiritual to Physical and back, just as suits their twisted distortyed purpose?
Oh, I'm learning so much.

2. In Acts, Christ tells Peter, his main Apostle to the Jews, via a vision that God when God declares something clean, it is clean. The analogy of the food was a very powerful one for Peter an Apostle to the Jews who couldn't eat banned foods.

Joppa!
Yes, Cephas was a Prophet to the Christians, one of several.
Analogy of the food! Oh Lord...... I need some tea.....
The ANALOGY probably made all love clean as well, possibly? No! Don't answer that! I can just about perceive your answer!

3. Twice, we have clear evidence from Jesus himself (not a third party) that food is not the issue and what food was unclean is now cleared for consumption.

Source! Where's the Source????
NO source = no proof.

4. There is no evidence, no words, nothing implied, anywhere in the New Testament absolving homosexuality as clean or acceptable to any person. It is still unclean, abominable and unacceptable to God in every context. No law or decree about homosexuality was rescinded by Christ except that instead of deserved death, now the homosexual was welcome to come to God and find freedom from his sins.

You've got to stop doing this....... if I am caused to wee myself or convulse through excessive laughter then just think of how remorseful you will feel.
So aCulture Warrior has decided what Jesus intended because of what He did not say?
I like you, but you're interfering with my digestion........

Having said that, please stop denying yourself the deliciousness of some cajun fried shrimp or some incredible shrimp scampi because you didn’t get the update memo.

I do like my shrimps, thankyou. And I collect huge oysters out on the free-ground quite regularly, BECAUSE THAT LAW WAS TO PROTECT THE ISRAELITES WHEN MEDICINE COULD NOT SAVE FROM 'SHELLFISH P{OISON PARALYSIS'.
AND GAYS CAN MARRY AND BE HAPPY FOR THE SAME REASONS!

God doesn’t hate shrimp, He hates sin.

Well then, stop sinning with your all devouring hatred. Come into the light of love and understanding.

There are 200-300 daily viewers that would love to see our discussion in my "Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 4" thread eider, are you sure you don't want to come over and play?

What....... come and play with you?
What would bigots think?

By the way....... My Wife was right, wasn't she? She reckons you ain't married, remember?