[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: I had to adopt

than HTannor is a false witness against his neighbour

Are you his neighbor?


And why do you have a photograph of Benny Hinn as your avatar? Are you trying to imply that he's a queer too?

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: I had to adopt

than HTannor is a false witness against his neighbour

Why should I believe some unsaved faggot over a True Christian™ Man of God?

[scherzo]

Re: I had to adopt

I assure you that by "fag" HTannor is suggesting that you have sex with other men.

than HTannor is a false witness against his neighbour

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: I had to adopt

on the contrary HTannor has,



Htannor has implied that either I am a homosexual, or my church is

As I have never nor currently am humping a man, he must be referring that homosexuality is something other than a man humping a man

I assure you that by "fag" HTannor is suggesting that you have sex with other men. You could have said, "no, I don't" but you didn't feel comfortable saying that. Why not? Why are you only now denying that you are a faggot?

[scherzo]

Re: I had to adopt

He didn't say anything of the sort you twit! Nobody here is saying that homosexuality is anything other than men humping! Stop being an idiot, you idiot!

on the contrary HTannor has,

As for his "church" I have no idea what the full name would be, but I'm guessing the "F" might refer to fairies or fags.

Htannor has implied that either I am a homosexual, or my church is

As I have never nor currently am humping a man, he must be referring that homosexuality is something other than a man humping a man

[Benedict A. Davis]

Re: I had to adopt

Well my point is actually to introduce myself as this is an introduction area.

it actually is another members pre-occupation with Fags or Faries that has started this discussion.



your statement is my point, they are ACTS of "homosexuality" which is an abomination. But I do not lend any credit to the leftist movement that recognizes the 'homosexual' as a race of men. To identify a "homosexual"" as something other than a man leads to arguments in legislation of "homosexual rights", "gay marriage", "affirmative action" etc. etc.

As it is a ACT (lying man with man) it is something one does, and not something one IS. even after a man lye with another man, which is an abomination, that man is not transformed into a mythical creature called, "homosexual" that man is still a man, he has the anatomy of a man, Just as a man who steals is still a man after stealing so is a man a man after lying with another man. One could call the man who steals a 'thief' but he is still a man, just as a man who lye's with another man can be called, 'homosexual' he is still a man with the anatomy of a man. But the term, homosexual used here is used to describe the act and not what the man is, and there is a difference

HTannor quoted,



Would HTannor be making a reference to what I have done? or making a reference to my tendencies but not have done?

Since you are such a stickler for semantics I would like to point out the following definition of lye, the word you constantly use instead of lie or lay.

Lye
Buy Lye.
www.eBay.com
lye (l)n.1. The liquid obtained by leaching wood ashes.
2. See potassium hydroxide.
3. See sodium hydroxide.

[Middle English lie, from Old English lag; see leu()- in Indo-European roots.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
lye [laɪ]n1. (Chemistry / Elements & Compounds) any solution obtained by leaching, such as the caustic solution obtained by leaching wood ash
2. (Chemistry / Elements & Compounds) a concentrated solution of sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide[Old English lēag; related to Middle Dutch lōghe, Old Norse laug bath, Latin lavāre to wash]


Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: I had to adopt

Show me one homosexual God has created without using the ACT of man lying with another man to establish that man is a homosexual. What physical evidence can you offer me that makes any man a homosexual that is separate from the ACT itself? is there a skin colour, or hair colour, language, eye colour, any one physical feature that establishes that a man is a homosexual?

He didn't say anything of the sort you twit! Nobody here is saying that homosexuality is anything other than men humping! Stop being an idiot, you idiot!

[scherzo]

Re: I had to adopt

Hold it right there, butterscotch.

God created everything. Without exception.

.

Show me one homosexual God has created without using the ACT of man lying with another man to establish that man is a homosexual. What physical evidence can you offer me that makes any man a homosexual that is separate from the ACT itself? is there a skin colour, or hair colour, language, eye colour, any one physical feature that establishes that a man is a homosexual?

[Brother Harold Porter]

Re: I had to adopt

Well my point is actually to introduce myself as this is an introduction area.

it actually is another members pre-occupation with Fags or Faries that has started this discussion.



your statement is my point, they are ACTS of "homosexuality" which is an abomination. But I do not lend any credit to the leftist movement that recognizes the 'homosexual' as a race of men. To identify a "homosexual"" as something other than a man leads to arguments in legislation of "homosexual rights", "gay marriage", "affirmative action" etc. etc.

As it is a ACT (lying man with man) it is something one does, and not something one IS. even after a man lye with another man, which is an abomination, that man is not transformed into a mythical creature called, "homosexual" that man is still a man, he has the anatomy of a man, Just as a man who steals is still a man after stealing so is a man a man after lying with another man. One could call the man who steals a 'thief' but he is still a man, just as a man who lye's with another man can be called, 'homosexual' he is still a man with the anatomy of a man. But the term, homosexual used here is used to describe the act and not what the man is, and there is a difference

HTannor quoted,



Would HTannor be making a reference to what I have done? or making a reference to my tendencies but not have done?

You have a very odd way of making a point and I'm still not clear what it is. This is common when one is under the influence of narcotics and your drivel suggests that you are indeed Chasing the Dragon between your posts.

However, if we unwrap all your twaddle and doubletalk, it would appear that you are in agreement that, if not for secular law, homosexuals (or those that commit the "act" of homosexuality) should be stoned to death as He commands. Is this correct?

If so, we are in agreement. Why not just state the obvious? Even a grade school True Christian™ already knows this.

Why not spend some time really introducing yourself and why you have such an obsession with homosexuality? Were you Sodomized as a young child? Did you abuse your pals in the neighborhood growing up?

Try not to be so esoteric and obtuse. Just confess.

Yours in Christ!

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: I had to adopt

Well my point is actually to introduce myself as this is an introduction area.

it actually is another members pre-occupation with Fags or Faries that has started this discussion.



your statement is my point, they are ACTS of "homosexuality" which is an abomination. But I do not lend any credit to the leftist movement that recognizes the 'homosexual' as a race of men. To identify a "homosexual"" as something other than a man leads to arguments in legislation of "homosexual rights", "gay marriage", "affirmative action" etc. etc.

As it is a ACT (lying man with man) it is something one does, and not something one IS. even after a man lye with another man, which is an abomination, that man is not transformed into a mythical creature called, "homosexual" that man is still a man, he has the anatomy of a man, Just as a man who steals is still a man after stealing so is a man a man after lying with another man. One could call the man who steals a 'thief' but he is still a man, just as a man who lye's with another man can be called, 'homosexual' he is still a man with the anatomy of a man. But the term, homosexual used here is used to describe the act and not what the man is, and there is a difference

HTannor quoted,



Would HTannor be making a reference to what I have done? or making a reference to my tendencies but not have done?

Now you are saying what I have been saying all along. A fag is someone who practices homosexuality. You say here that homosexuality is an action, not a tendency. A tendency, my friend, is just a pattern of actions. Someone who engages in homosexual behavior is what is called in the English language- "a homosexual".

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: I had to adopt

God did not create 'homosexuals' he created man and woman.

Hold it right there, butterscotch.

God created everything. Without exception.

Proverbs 16:4
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things

.

[scherzo]

Re: I had to adopt

what exactly is your point here?

Well my point is actually to introduce myself as this is an introduction area.

it actually is another members pre-occupation with Fags or Faries that has started this discussion.

The bible clearly describes many acts of homosexuality

your statement is my point, they are ACTS of "homosexuality" which is an abomination. But I do not lend any credit to the leftist movement that recognizes the 'homosexual' as a race of men. To identify a "homosexual"" as something other than a man leads to arguments in legislation of "homosexual rights", "gay marriage", "affirmative action" etc. etc.

As it is a ACT (lying man with man) it is something one does, and not something one IS. even after a man lye with another man, which is an abomination, that man is not transformed into a mythical creature called, "homosexual" that man is still a man, he has the anatomy of a man, Just as a man who steals is still a man after stealing so is a man a man after lying with another man. One could call the man who steals a 'thief' but he is still a man, just as a man who lye's with another man can be called, 'homosexual' he is still a man with the anatomy of a man. But the term, homosexual used here is used to describe the act and not what the man is, and there is a difference

HTannor quoted,

As for his "church" I have no idea what the full name would be, but I'm guessing the "F" might refer to fairies or fags

Would HTannor be making a reference to what I have done? or making a reference to my tendencies but not have done?

[Brother Harold Porter]

Re: I had to adopt

Truly I'm not wanting to argue. I'm simply stating fact.

Genisis 1:26



God did not create 'homosexuals' he created man and woman. God only created a law that demands that his creation (man) not lye with another (man) for it is an abomination.

The mythical creature called homosexual is one who wants or has feelings of sleeping with another man since birth, aka since creation, as verse 31 clearly says, "behold, it was good" - God has never created a (male) who enjoys, wishes, wants, feels, desires to lye with another man

Yes, our Lord did say this at the beginning and there was no faggotry or "homosexuals" in the Garden of Eden. How could there be? There was only ONE man!

Are you aware that things changed?

"So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." Genesis 3:24 - KJV

It was after the Fall that men and women became sinful, in ways too numerous to list, but including "homosexuality".

Your argument is inane. The bible clearly describes many acts of homosexuality. Just because the word isn't in the Bible means nothing. "Appaloosa" isn't in the Bible either, but any idiot (except for you) would know it is a "horse" which, like homosexuality, is cleary described in the Bible.

Other than the obvious one on the top of your head, what exactly is your point here?

Yours in Christ!

[scherzo]

Re: I had to adopt

Indeed. "Fag" is simply a modern non-pejorative word for describing a homosexual. A nickname, if you will.

If you want to argue that a man that lies with another man is not a "homosexual", please go away and find another vein to pop.

Yours in Christ!

Truly I'm not wanting to argue. I'm simply stating fact.

Genisis 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: .......
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them....


31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

God did not create 'homosexuals' he created man and woman. God only created a law that demands that his creation (man) not lye with another (man) for it is an abomination.

The mythical creature called homosexual is one who wants or has feelings of sleeping with another man since birth, aka since creation, as verse 31 clearly says, "behold, it was good" - God has never created a (male) who enjoys, wishes, wants, feels, desires to lye with another man

[Brother Harold Porter]

Re: I had to adopt

Correction, a man who lies with another man is an abomination. The KJV says nothing about 'fag' or 'fairy', your question of, "how can a fag be straight" would have to substitue 'fag' for another noun, as there is no such thing as 'fag' or 'fairy'. The most obvious noun to be used would be 'man'

How can a man be straight?

but even 'straight' is another tool of the leftist agenda. for a man to be straight implies a man can be 'not straight' or 'homosexual', which does not exist.

It may sound I am arguing semantics, but I'm afraid the leftists have succeeded with you as well, as you are confusing the ACT of lying with a man with a pre-existing feeling of wanting to lye with another man

Indeed. "Fag" is simply a modern non-pejorative word for describing a homosexual. A nickname, if you will.

If you want to argue that a man that lies with another man is not a "homosexual", please go away and find another vein to pop.

Yours in Christ!