Daniel P. Barron

All who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.

Thursday, June 27, 2019

Nate: Daniel, do you accept trans people?
Daniel: Transexuals are disgusting.
Nate: No. Trans-gendered people.
Daniel: Whatever, same difference.
Nate: Why? I don't recall a Biblical passage against them. :thinking:
Daniel: Effeminate males do not inherit the kingdom of God.i
Nate: You know that's based on a bad translation, right? The Greek word for that translation means "soft." Not effeminate.
Daniel: Same thing.
Nate: Besides they don't say that they are male, so... Not really? Soft has a host of meanings. Especially the Greek term.
Daniel: It is the result of a debased mind for a male to believe he is a female.
Nate: "Soft," in Paul's context, could arguably refer to people not fighting for the Kingdom of God.
Daniel: It is a lie.
Nate: Where does the Bible say that? Just wondering.
Daniel: Because a male is a male; not a female.
Nate: I am aware.
Daniel: To believe otherwise is a mental disorder.
Nate: But they don't think they are male. Where in the Bible does it say that? Just wondering.
Daniel: Romans 1:

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

Nate: That's talking about homosexual relationships of the day, not transgender-ism. C'mon aren't you better than quoting verses that are overtly out of context?
Daniel: For a male to believe he is female is to believe a lie.
B0rGs1o54: The NKJV is false.
Nate: Where in the Bible does it say that?
Daniel: It is inherently a lie.
Nate: Where in the Bible does it say that?
B0rGs1o54: The NKJV is only correct when I say it is. Extra biblical information. Where in the Bible does it say the NKJV is false?
Daniel: Nate, if a male who believes he is a female has sex with a male, is this a homosexual act?
Nate: I dunno, I'm not talking about sex. I'm asking a simple question. Where in the Bible does it condemn Transgender-ism?
Daniel: You are asking a silly question.
Nate: No, I'm testing your consistency, it's a very good question for that actually.
Daniel: A male is a male, and this is an inherently true statement.
Nate: Yes.
Daniel: To believe otherwise is to believe a lie.
Nate: But they are saying they aren't a man.
Daniel: They are lying.
Nate: Where in the Bible does it say that?
B0rGs1o54: Where does the Bible say that all bible translations are false.
Daniel: You are trying to use my own line against me but it doesn't apply here.
Nate: Why not? You are basically saying to reject dogma except when it's your dogma. And it's hilarious.
Daniel: Deuteronomy 22:

5 “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.

B0rGs1o54: Saint Danial pray for us.
Nate: That's obviously contextual. Also,

Daniel: We are no longer under the old covenant. http://atruechurch.info/lawofgod.html

Daniel: I guess you would say, it's different if they REALLY BELIEVE they are the other sex.
SirSweetPea: Ye.
Daniel: It's still an abomination.
Nate: Why?
SirSweetPea: That is the old covenant.
Nate: Where in the Bible does it say that?
Daniel: It says "all who do so are an abomination to the Lord."

Daniel: We are no longer under the old covenant. http://atruechurch.info/lawofgod.html

Daniel: It's still an abomination. Do these things stop being an abomination to God because we're no longer under the law?
B0rGs1o54: Where in the Bible does it say to worship the Bible.
Daniel: Matthew 4:

4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ ”

Nate: Daniel, can Christians eat pork?
Daniel: Yes.
Nate: Deuteronomy 14:

3 Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.

4 These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat,

5 The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.

6 And every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that ye shall eat.

7 Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.

8 And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:

10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.

12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,

14 And every raven after his kind,

15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,

17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,

18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

19 And every creeping thing that flieth is unclean unto you: they shall not be eaten.

20 But of all clean fowls ye may eat.

21 Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

It says that pork is abominable.

Daniel: It's still an abomination do these things stop being an abomination to God because we're no longer under the law?

Daniel: Does it say it is abominable to God?
Nate: It's implied because it's God speaking?
Daniel: It just says some things are not to be eaten so that the Israelites should be set apart from the other nations.
Nate: Exactly. It's the old law. And that was fulfilled in Christ Jesus. It is also listed as an abomination to wear clothes made of two or more materials.
Daniel: God does not see the eating of these things in general to be an abomination.
Nate: Why? You are making random calls.
Daniel: It doesn't say so, and He goes on to explain in the NT that we aren't made unclean by eating these things.
Nate: >God meant this is an abomination eternally, never says that but that's what it means. >God doesn't mean this is an eternal abomination, just for the Israelites.
Daniel: Well in my example, it specifically says it is an abomination to God. In your example, it doesn't.
Nate: It does though. Because God is speaking.
B0rGs1o54: Protestantism is strange.
Daniel: No, it just says don't eat abominable things.
Nate: Yes. And they remain abominable.
Daniel: To who?
Nate: If your logic is correct.
B0rGs1o54: Danial should quit his Roman Catholicism.
Nate: Daniel, to everyone.
Daniel: Pork was never abominable to me.
Nate: So why is cross-dressing abominable to you? Both are part of the old law.
Daniel: It's abominable to God. God created us male and female.
Nate: You are literally misquoting the verse as well. For all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God. The people who do so are an abomination.ii UNDER THE OLD LAW. The old law is fulfilled. It's exclusive to the Israelites. Deuteronomy 22:

11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

Daniel: That is simply not true, as is exemplified by Sodom.
Nate: Just as this is part of the old law. Where does the Bible say that Sodom has anything to do with cross-dressing?
Daniel: The inhabitants of Sodom were not under the old law, and yet God found it necessary to destroy them.
Nate: You are literally making up exegesis. Yes. Because they wanted to rape his angels. That has nothing to do with cross-dressing.
Daniel: No, because of what they had done before His visit.
Nate: What did they do?
Daniel: He was visiting as two men to see if what He heard about them was true. They were all homosexuals.
Nate: Where does the Bible say that?
B0rGs1o54: A true church is homosexual.
Daniel: Genesis 18:

20 And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”

Nate: That doesn't answer my question. Where are the acts of Sodom identified as homosexuality?
Daniel: Genesis 19:

4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.”

Nate: Yes. Rape is bad. What's your point?
Daniel: This is their sin, that God had heard about and went to check out. They were all homosexuals. All but lot and his family. And after Lot had left, the city was destroyed. Also, rape is never condemned in the law.iii So that can't even be true, what you have suggested.
Nate: Where does the Bible say homosexuality was there sin? It doesn't. You are making up exegesis. In fact it identifies the sin of Sodom as something completely unrelated. Ezekiel 16:

48 As I live, saith the Lord God, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.

49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

They didn't help the poor, they were idle and haughty.
Daniel: "and committed abomination before me"
Nate: That's what the Bible says. What abomination?
Daniel: Homosexuality.
Nate: Please tell me where the Bible says that.
Daniel: Leviticus 20:

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Nate: First of all, that's the old law.
Daniel: So?
Nate: Second of all, you are dodging the question.

Daniel: We are no longer under the old covenant. http://atruechurch.info/lawofgod.html

Daniel: I thought you were asking where the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination.
Nate: No.
Daniel: So you agree it is an abomination?
Nate: I asked where it identifies the acts of Sodom as homosexuality. My personal opinion doesn't matter.
Daniel: I showed you that already.
Nate: You didn't though.
Daniel: It says that all the men in the city came to have homosexual sex.
Nate: There is nowhere in the Bible that it says that the acts of Sodom are homosexuality.
Daniel: It also says homosexuality is an abomination.
Nate: No, it says they came to gang rape angels.
Daniel: Ergo, when it says "for their abomination," we can safely conclude that at least one of those abominations was homosexuality.
Nate: What? That literally makes no sense.
Daniel: Rape is never called an abomination. Where does the Bible forbid rape?
Nate: You just said that God was destroying them for their sin prior to the scene described in Genesis. Are you saying rape is justified? But homosexuality is not?
Daniel: No, but I'm asking you to show me where the Bible forbids it.
Nate: What is even happening? :joy: https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/god-is-not-silent-what-the-bible-teaches-about-sexual-assault Also, rape is done out of lust. Lust is condemned. Also violence is condemned. Also violating someone else's virtue is condemned. Also sex outside marriage is condemned. Need I say more?
Daniel: But rape itself as an act, that is not condemned?
Nate: Rape is all four of those things combined.
Daniel: Not necessarily.
Nate: It's not only condemned, it's condemned on all fronts. Yes necessarily.
Daniel: It's not necessarily lust, it's not necessarily out of marriage.
Nate: Rape literally follows from sexual desire?
Daniel: It's not even necessarily violent.
Nate: Do you know what rape is?! >Holding someone against their will and forcibly having sex with them is not violent.
I'm done. It's clear your position is completely ridiculous.
Daniel: Violence is when you harm someone.
Nate: No, violence is when you PHYSICALLY assault someone.
Daniel: The Bible calls divorce a violent act; where does it call rape a violent act?
Nate: WHAT? ?!?! 2/ Have fun in your cult. It's clear you are not consistent. I got what I came for :joy:
Daniel: You are making up things that the Bible says.
Nate: Epic.
Daniel: The correct way to say rape is wrong is to cite Luke 6:

31 And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.

Nate: That doesn't specifically call out rape. :weary:
Daniel: It's safe to say that nobody wants to be raped. By definition of the word.
Nate: It's also safe to say that rape is violent. But you rejected that. You are truly epic Daniel. Truly epic.
Daniel: Well to say it's violent is to say it causes harm, and I don't know that the Bible says such a thing.
Daniel: Also, violence isn't necessarily wrong.
Nate: The Bible doesn't need to say that rape causes harm, because it does. It's an observable fact. Are you dumb?
Daniel: Is it not a violent act to execute a murderer? And yet God commands the Israelites to do so.
Nate: In the OLD LAW. omg. I'm not doing this again. Have a good day.

  1. (KJV) 1 Corinthians 6:
    9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

  2. I should have pointed out here: the people are the abomination in this case, whereas the food is the abomination in the other case.

  3. Darwin: It is “condemned” in the sense that the man must marry her, if she was a virgin, and not be allowed to divorce her (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), which could be a sentence worst than death (Ecclesiastes 7:26).

    Also, Deuteronomy 22:26 compares the rape of a betrothed woman with murder, in that, the woman is innocent in the matter, just as the victim of a murderer is innocent. Moreover, in this case the man is to be killed. So, in this case the rape of a betrothed woman is indeed condemned.