Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
This has been a lively discussion. Here's what I'm walking away with.
|
Liberals can't have a honest discussion. Logic isn't a liberals strong point, misrepresentation is. You are walking away from the discussion? Aquila, this wasn't your last post. You actually dragged on for quite awhile. While some other liberals massaged your shoulders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
I have a better understanding as to why some folk think that Deuteronomy 22:5 is primarily about pants. I disagree, but I do understand the position better. |
No, because if you were honest you would of dealt with what I originally offered. Yet, you want to be an intellectual coward and claim you understand the other side's viewpoint? When you don't? You are AFF's Joy Behar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
I've come to realize that to some an abomination isn't as serious as the Bible makes it sound.
|
I gave you a list of verses dealing with abomination. Asking you originally if you could tell me which ones were abrogated? You refused to deal with it. I then asked you to show how you would deal with each one with YOUR idea that abominations are to be shunned? Meaning what? No, you ran out of road, and therefore couldn't logically even defend your own argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
I've come to realize that there is a difference in what repentance means.
|
You just learned this now? During this discussion?
Seriously?
Sweet Jesus, what are you on?
I'll change my last thought. You are really the Stuart Smalley of AFF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
I've also come to understand that regardless of one's views on Deuteronomy 22:5, they will still apply the text as a modesty issue, not as an abomination issue. |
Liberals also are more interested in modifying ancient religious texts to suit their feelings. They also get upset, call people idiots, when those feelings are called out for being baseless. They want to deal with the readers or listeners emotions and bring up stupidity. Like the color red, if a woman or man can sleep in feety pajamas, or wear hoodies which have Hello Kitty on the back.
When the original discussion wasn't based on the insanity of the current culture. No,
Deuteronomy 22:5 doesn't have the word Canaanite religion anywhere. But the crew who claim pants are men's attire and katastole is women, have the better argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
I've also come to understand that disfellowshipping as a form of church discipline is actually disdained by conservatives, even though it is a prescribed form of church discipline in the Scriptures.
|
What? Who brought up shunning? Manipulation of facts, salted with misrepresentations? You are now officially AFF's Anderson Cooper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
All the bluster is really for nothing. Those who preach that pants are an abomination will still approach the issue as though it is only a modesty issue that one must grow and spiritually mature into. They do not demand nor require "repentance" from what they believe is an abomination. According to them, one simply matures out of their abominations.
|
Some would use a different term for you than bluster. Your dilithium crystals burned out captain, and you just couldn't hold it together.
I offered you the same exact list over and over again. You didn't touch not side, top, or bottom of it. Trying to have you deal with anything rational was like nailing Jello to your forehead with a nail gun. All that happened after you posted this gem, was to get a sponge bath from other libs.
Like I have already posted a few times. This thread died the death of a thousand cuts long ago. Amanah pointed that out, clearly.
Linear Mode
