Notice the anger from pro-abortion apologists

BMS

Well-known member
1
IOW, apart from the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, you can't show us where the bible says anything about female same-sex relationships, since female homosexuals do not have have anal sex which Paul described as "vile" and "unseemly" and as not "the natural use of the woman" (Romans 1:26-27).
Ok so Ruth and Naomi were in line with God's purposes, you are thinking of homosexuality again, no indication of that. You will never understand God's Biblical testimony whilst you are thinking about homosexuality and any of the other perverted sexual practices constantly on your mind.

Tell you what, I'll tell you about what God's Biblical testimony actually says and you can teĺl me all about your lgbt religion
 

BMS

Well-known member
IOW, apart from the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, you can't show us where the bible says anything about female same-sex relationships, since female homosexuals do not have have anal sex which Paul described as "vil"unseemly" and as not "the natural use of the woman" (Romans 1:26-27).
Point out to me where the Bible says anal sex.
 

BMS

Well-known member
But what on Earth has that got to do with the termination of pregnancies when pregnant adulteresses are commanded to be stoned to death?

And where does the bible say that women who lie with women instead of men is wicked and should be stoned to death?
That is what I am asking you. What on earth are you on about. You dont seem to be able to address any question put to you without responding with some imaginary thing going on in your head.
 

J regia

Well-known member
That is what I am asking you. What on earth are you on about. You dont seem to be able to address any question put to you without responding with some imaginary thing going on in your head.
IOW you can't show us where the bible says anything about female homosexuality, nor why the pregnancies of pregnant adulteresses are not terminated by stoning as commanded in Leviticus 20:10.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Point out where the bible says female homosexuality.
Yes it condemns female homosexuality in Romans 1 but you only read anal sex. You know the expression ' cant see the wood for the trees' well you cant see the male and female for the anal sex
 

J regia

Well-known member
Wrong.
Romans 1:26-27 says nothing at at about female homosexuality or women with women.
It says that if the men were playing tiddly winks then likewise so were their women.
And if the men were eating oysters then likewise so were their women.
And if the men were having penetrative sex then likewise so were their women.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Wrong.
Romans 1:26-27 says nothing at at about female homosexuality or women with women.
It says that if the men were playing tiddly winks then likewise so were their women.
And if the men were eating oysters then likewise so were their women.
And if the men were having penetrative sex then likewise so were their women.
Wrong. Romans 1 condemns female homosexuality. Now I see what your problem is. You refuse to see it. You start by citing anal sex, which isnt in the passage by any translation, as an objection, and then having got nowhere with that you then invent 'men's women' which also isnt in the text, as another objection. You also add anything that has already been explained to you as an objection.
So we can see that Romans 1 condemns female homosexuality by what it says, and it doesn't say what you claim.

Thankfully people will be able to see your hostile and persistent objection as a concern.
 

J regia

Well-known member
Wrong. Romans 1 condemns female homosexuality.
Have you ever actually read Romans 1? If so, where does it mention anything about female homosexuality or women with women? Or are you just making that up?
 
Last edited:

Temujin

Well-known member
Not so. You called the unborn human a parasite.
I call the male angler fish a parasite. I call parasitic wasps parasites. What has calling a parasite a parasite got to do with the Nazis? If they call Jews, who are not parasites, parasites, then they are mistaken. Parasite has a clear biological definition, which fits the unborn of all mammals including humans. It is not always a term of abuse.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Not so. Fish arent humans! You referred to the unborn human as a parasite just like Hitler referred to the Jews as parasites.. BOTH WITH THE INTENT THAT THEY BE DESTROYED.

So I would say you are being dishonest, but there are human beings being destroyed in pro-choice abortion so I certainly dont give a toss about your feelings
Just for a side to fish,
The Biblical false god Dagon was half human and half fish. The roots of Darwinism in an ancient religious kult.
 
Top