So dang dishonest. Get a dang liberal on the ropes and what does he do? Begins to lie his dang butt right off. I hate this kinda crap.
56016
Trudog said:> The Bible doesn't tell me to hate homosexuals, just to dispense with them.
Truedog here began with a statement to the effect that the Bible doesn't tell him to hate homosexuals, just to get rid of them. (He later clarifies that exile is perhaps included in the definition of “dispense.”)
Then, like so many dang homo propagandists, here comes the vain homosexual rescue attempt.
56082
YOU: I'm unsure, Truedog, about which part of the Bible in fact enjoins 'dispensing' with homosexuals. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Then as the conversation progressed, you began moving closer to your aim.
56112
YOU: I know of no place where [Jesus] condemned a homosexual, either. I can't seem to find the OT passage you mention. It concerns me, however, that you see it as your personal responsibility to enforce laws that were given to a theocratic Israel.
Your point here (and you may lie all you want. You know the dang truth) was to subtly claim that homosexuality was not a severe issue in the Old Testament (ooh I can't find it, truedog. So it can't be that significant to the Old Testament) and that neither was it a severe issue with Jesus. The implication here is that it since it was not significant to the OT (and thus neither to the Jews), and since it was not significant to Jesus (the Author of Christianity), then it should not be a severe issue for truedog or any other Christian.
This is really absurd of you to do, subtly implying here that the Jews and Jesus simply tolerated (or would have) homosexuality. But you did it, just as would a stinkin' Pharisee. You knew what you were doing from the very moment you claimed not to know of any Scripture condemning homosexuality. You knew exactly what Scripture truedog had in mind. So dang dishonest. Revolting.
56126
Yes, he tells [the adulteress] to sin no more. Though I think if you reread the story you will find no hint of a request for forgiveness on her part (John 8). But the episode also surely shows that Jesus rejects inflicting the Old Testament penalty for adultery. Truedog seems to imply that the Old Testament penalty for homosexuality is still valid.
Here we clearly see what you were trying to accomplish all along, just like a stinking homo propagandist, a subtle implication that since the woman never asked for forgiveness, and since Jesus never condemned her adultery, Jesus merely ignored the Law and winked at the sin. You finish up this trash with the implication that Truedog should therefore do the same regarding homosexuality.
You know I speak here the dang truth, but perhaps you just enjoy lying. You can't expect a snake to turn into a dove. So dang dishonest.
56194
Yes, you are taking at least this one OT law as still important. I only want to point out that you are being selective in doing so (note that Lev. 20:19 has the same penalty for sex with a menstruating woman as for homosexual sex). But why so much interest in denouncing this particular sin? Jesus did not pay much attention to it.
Here you yet again claim that Jesus simply overlooked homosexuality and therefore truedog should too. This is just like the shoddy work of a typical homo propagandist. And every dang time I have told you what you were attempting you have denied it, trying to act virtually as if you merely were gathering information. This is so dang disgusting, I cannot tell you how repulsive it is to me.
You get a dang liberal homo propagandist on the ropes and instead of standing like men, they start lying their butts off and perverting themselves. Heck no. I do not think you are honourable. So then it is best indeed that we terminate this dang discussion. |
