If I did something worthy of death, I do not object to dying.
Trump sez: Transgenders B gone!
- Thread starter ok doser
- Start date
So, your sins are not worthy of death but the sin of homosexuality is?
Are you playing God again JR or are you simply special pleading a rationale for hate?
That is saying let love be true. Abhor what is evil is sin, more than the sinner.
I just saw the title and this is one subject I find most stupid. Look how you see women like TV show host Ellen, she dresses like a man, even wears ties. It seems people do not take offense when the female cross dresses. Men wearing dresses is a big fetish and that is the all of it in transgender
So I agree with Trump on sex identity, but I do not see such a big wrong in some men wearing dresses, or looking like women, just the wrong in having to change their bodies. What a price to pay for wanting to wear a dress! It is so stupid, hardly any of these persons have a first, if any, desire to have babies!
What is despicable is that transvestite males, which is far most of them, although they hate being refereed to as such, the necessity to cut their bodies just to wear long girly hair high heels and dresses.
If we would stop laughing at them the way most of us do not laugh at obese persons, then they would not need to chop up their bodies to feel OK with that desire.
There are many XXY, XXXY, XXYY, YYY, XO, (XX)(XY) and more variants, like (XX) sex role reversal when they appear male at birth!!! XXY occurs in 1 out of every 500 births, This nonsense you are debating occurs in 1 out of 10,000
Why not argue about those who are XXY, what are they male or female?
:troll:
We are talking about crimes here, quip, not sins (though, all crime is sin).
Homosexuality is a crime, and criminals deserve justice.
KayTee, the verse says to love without hypocrisy, and to hate what is evil.
If someone is being evil, then he is evil, and should be hated.
You've probably fallen into the cliché of "hating the sin, loving the sinner", but that's G mpletely opposite of loving without hypocrisy and hating evil.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Yup!
Right wing religious fanatic, homophobic, anti-choice truck driver, that's me!
They also have the right to seek help getting rid of their homosexual tendencies, but mostly they have the right to be executed.
Don't like your choice of words JR. Rather childish.
What's not to like? It's all true!
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Typical liberal tactic.
Agree that the best system is a democracy which serves the majority, then switch the rules and force everyone to adjust their behavior according to .2% of the population.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Homosexuality is not a crime.
It is foolishness, ignorance and pitiable.
Please get your facts straight.
Your comments are an embarrassment to conservatives.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Please don't comment on what I say or even pretend I am your ally.
I am not on your side
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. - Leviticus 18:22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus18:22&version=NKJV
It was a crime for 3500 years, until the perverts changed the laws.
Please get your facts straight.
Your comments are an embarrassment to Christians.
If you're a Christian, as I am, you should be on God's side.
And according to God it still IS a crime, even if it's not on man's lawbooks.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Just 2 verses above in Lev 18:20 it says
"Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her."
Would you also say that adulterers should be executed? Well Jesus disagrees with you. Jhn 8:11KJV, Jhn 3:17KJV
Why don't you learn something you brain dead legalist!
Putting the emphasis on external manifestations does not deal with what is most important to God - the condition of our hearts with regard to Him.
You are opposed to the gospel of grace.
You are a modern day Pharisee.
Yes.
No, He doesn't, or rather, He affirmed what was written in His laws which HE gave to Moses. The woman was not found guilty, because there were no witnesses.
God says (in both the Old and New Testaments) that the standard needed for a conviction (or simply to establish something) is "two or three witnesses."
When Jesus asked for witnesses to come forward, none did, because the law also says that the witnesses were to be among the first to put to death the criminal worthy of death.
None remained, so according to the law, the woman could not be condemned, even if she had committed adultery, and was guilty of it.
Or do you think that "thou shalt not commit adultery" was just a temporary law?
And one verse later:
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. - John 3:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John3:18&version=NKJV
Insults do not make for valid arguments.
Huh?
So what you're saying is you're ok with there being no law at all?
The law was made for the wicked.
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. - 1 Timothy 1:8-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Timothy1:8-11&version=NKJV
It seems you've forgotten what Paul said:
Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. - Romans 3:31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:31&version=NKJV
You're saying "take away the law, because we live in the age of Grace!"
Paul says "the law is good if used lawfully, and the law is not made void through faith, so we rightly establish the law."
I'm gonna go with Paul on this one.
Since I've been part of a discussion on John 8 recently, I encourage you to read through the thread:
https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?ur...&share_tid=130772&share_fid=4230&share_type=t
We talked about the many aspects of what was said in John 8 by both the ones who brought the woman before Jesus and by Jesus Himself.
I think you'll find that Jesus did not repeal the law that said to stone adulterers, but that He upheld it.