HOME | DD
Xiao-Fury — Resist the Devil pt 1
Published: 2013-04-21 04:50:49 +0000 UTC; Views: 2797; Favourites: 8; Downloads: 3
Redirect to original
Description
The WNBA is especially plagued with the spirit of homosexuality.Related content
Comments: 718
But you DO know that you are you, and not someone else, right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Of course I do, but there's nothing wrong with pretending to be a different gender, it's not hurting anyone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually it is.... physically in this case. www.lifesitenews.com/news/tran…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I read the article and I totally disagree...if "he" is now "she", then SHE is free to do whatever the fuck SHE wants. She wanted to be a professional fighter and now SHE is.
Your bigoted, shallow-minded view on humanity, sexuality and gender fluidity is appalling. Earth belongs to humans, and it's the only Earth we've got so deal with the choices people make, deal with the way people are born, deal with the problems you have before projecting your opinions on other people. Think before you speak and above all stop being so fucking rude
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Denial speaks.
You are making an excuse for a man who just put on false breasts and hair. This man is pummeling women and the odds are severely out numbered for the REAL WOMEN....Yet you make an excuse for scum like that? Equality....yeah right.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
okay but
i know plenty of girls who dress more like guys and are straight
kiLL GENDER ROLES
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you kill gender roles, you kill humanity.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
how so? i'd prefer if we just didn't have gender roles and people didn't bash others for what they wore or how they acted. clothes or colors shouldn't be defined by gender, in my opinion. actions shouldn't be defined by gender, either.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because we only have male and females in the world, but now people want to be anything that goes against nature. Ruin nature, ruin order, ruin humanity.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
"Because we only have male and females in the world" - I was born intersex
So did your God fuck up or something?
Where do I fit in, in your little "der is only boys n girls" world?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I LOVE HOW SHE DIDNT REPLY HAHA
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
girls can dress like boys if they want to. boys can dress like girls if they want to. i fail to see any issues with this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Can you quote to me the part of the bible that specifically mentions lesbians?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's a very vague reference though, its only referencing lust (since back in those days it was considered odd for a woman to commit adultery, if I'm correct women were stoned to death, men were not) So it was a bigger deal for women to be lustful than for men. There's nothing that specifically states a woman with another woman.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Vague? It's the most informative and down to earth description of that sin. It literally says how men turn to other men, and leave the natural use of women due to burning in their own lust. Adultery is adultery. Homosexuality is homosexuality. Sin should have been odd, but it did become the norm in many generations such as the era of Noah and now as we speak. Adultery was punishable to both who committed the sin (Deut 22. Lev 18). In Islam, however, it is the woman who gets punished for adultery for nearly everything.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You just referenced a totally different quote. The one referencing women committing sin says nothing about them turning to each other, you just referenced the one mentioning men turning to each other, though that quote also doesn't mention women committing it either. The bible only ever mentions men when it comes to homosexuality.
No, it wasn't just Islam, Christian women were stoned to death for adultery but men got away just fine.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because it's called referencing. I reference scriptures on adultery and incest, since you believe that in Christianity, it is only women who get punished.
You're confusing Christianity with Islam. Now don't say things and can't back it up. I can say that all LGBTs are doomed to hell without hope or a chance to even come clean to God, and you won't find that in the Word of God. Stay focused.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay, I'm sorry what? I never said its only Christianity, seriously here's exactly what I just said ' No, it wasn't just Islam'. I never said it was just Christianity, I also am aware Islam do it as well. Please don't make assumptions of me, I stated clearly that I don't just believe its Christianity.
Well, to be frank, this started from the fact there is no reference to actual lesbians in the bible. Somehow you have changed this to Islam V Christianity. You yourself ignored my whole point about lesbians never being mentioned. If you wish to stay on the initial topic, that was it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But Christianity DOESN'T stone just women, nor are women or men being stoned as I speak in Christianity. That's the point I'm making. You can't just say false things about Christianity and have no evidence of it. That's called LYING.
You rejected the evidence I gave you in Romans which clearly states how men abandon the use of women, and turn to themselves and how women do the same. Rejecting the truth because you don't like it or agree with it, doesn't cease from making it the truth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Again I must refer to what I said earlier, this was when the Bible was first created, in those days people were stoned for adultery. I must confess I did get one thing wrong, apparently men could be stoned for adultery, so there is that. I know nowadays its only Islam that stones, but as I said before, I was referring to BC, not current day. If you wish to prove me wrong that people were not stoned before BC for crimes feel free to say so, but at the moment its just your word against mine.
The evidence you gave me did not mention lesbians. Its a man turning away from women to another man, the quote never mentions women doing the same thing. I'm more than willing to listen but you haven't given me a quote that actually references lesbians, only a quote that mentions gay men.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It wasn't just women being stoned, which is why I showed you those scriptures hoping that you would actually read what was written in the law instead of just the typical hearsay Christianity bashing.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections : for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;<
Can't get any clearer than that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I wasn't intending to attack Christianity, I don't hate Christianity at all. Yes, I am sorry I was wrong that not only women were stoned, I apologize for not doing proper research.
Men left the use of women, but women did not burn for each other. It does not say at all that they turned to each other, it just says they turned from the 'natural use'. When it says that it appears to just be referencing sex, so they stopped having sex to just produce children (natural) and had sex for pleasure e.g lust (un natural). Its very vague and entirely up to interpretation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Very well. Erased.
No. There is no sin if a woman chooses not to have children to my knowledge. It clearly reads as such-
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:
for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
So then the question here is what are vile affections?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well God did say to go forth and multiple, its kind of expected of a woman. For a long time it was considered lust simply to have sex not with the intention of having a child.
Hmmm... Affections for sex? The next bit references sex, so, it would make sense if it means a love for sex, or sexual love.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No. There is no scripture that makes vile the choice to not procreate, except if it's abortion which is murder of an innocent child.
It is a sin to have sex out of marriage. It's called fornication, which is one huge problem as to why families are broken.
Read it again.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
It clearly reads that they went to each other for sex, and then there's also Lev 18:22 which makes it so plain and clear. 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There's none that says you shouldn't no, but the idea is humans should procreate, that's what God wants. Its still an obligation.
I don't get how this proves the Bible mentions lesbians. Yes dishonor their own bodies between themselves through sex, no reference to it being between women. And again the reference to 22, that only applies to men. There is no direct actual reference to womankind lying with womankind anywhere in the bible.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm gonna go ahead and say that your eyes are spiritually closed now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why...? Why are you assuming that? As someone who is very spiritual that's rather an offensive thing to jump to, especially since I've tried to be as civil as possible. Why the sudden need to insult me?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You can't read what's in the Word 'right now' because your eyes are spiritually closed. I hope not for too long. To me, it is plainly written, but for you it's an obstacle.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All I have done is question the bible, because it has flaws. Of course it has flaws, it is no longer the pure word of God, the bible has had thousands of years in the hands of corrupt sinful people changing it and altering it to fit what they want. Whether God dictated the original bible or not I don't know, but I do question the current bible because this one is written by purely man.
Please, stop making assumptions of somebody you know absolutely nothing about.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What flaws? Just because something grows old doesn't mean it's no longer true. It's just old. Thankfully, the Word of God says, "Hebrew 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. the story of adam and eve. If we are all children of adam and eve then their children had to commit incest to have more children, which means they committed a sin, and God intended for that. However if God created more humans elsewhere for adam and eves children to marry, then we are not all children of adam the eve.
2. as we were discussing, the fact the bible never mentions lesbians
3. The issue of whether a man can marry his brother's widow. I learnt about this in history class, the Hebrew bible stated that a man could not marry his brothers widow, but the latin version said you could. That is proof that through translation and time the bible has been altered by man to fit his desires.
If God speaks to me I will listen, but I cannot comfortably blindly follow the written words of religion because whatever God did say has been twisted by men.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. Adam and Eve were the first humans. They were directly from God and the only humans on earth. So of course their off spring had to mingle. However, as sin grew within people, the Lord ordered the law to be made which out lawed incest. (Leviticus 18, 19). Any form of intermingling now is incest. This isn't a flaw on the Word of God. This is the typical hearsay Christianity bashing.
2. It mentioned it Lev 18:22, and Romans 1. You ignored it.
3. And you cited nothing, so I have no idea what you are talking about. More hearsay. God said, "10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love". But you support homosexuality, an act that God never condoned. Religion isn't the problem here. It's your own disobedience.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. But that still means God created them initially intended their children to commit incest. Why would God allow a sin initially then retract it later? Surely sin should never be allowed, you said there is no excuse for sinning. And please I am not bashing Christianity at all, I am questioning the bible.
2. It made a vague reference to females being lustful and to men having sex, NOT to lesbians. I asked you multiple times to cite me the verse that specifically stated how womankind would lay with womankind and you couldn't give me one.
3. Basically King Henry the 8th of England wanted to divorce his wife, he needed a biblical reason to say it was unjust. When looking in the bible to say whether a man can marry his brothers widow (His wife had previously married his brother Arthur, but Arthur died and so she married Henry) and the bibles contradicted each other.
I don't follow the Bible, so its your opinion I am wrong, and thankfully I am not too worried about your opinion, so we're fine. As I said, the Bible has long been tarnished by man, as has every holy book. I am a Buddhist but I don't always follow the words of Buddha because his quotes have been changed over time. I follow what makes sense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. 1. Adam and Eve were the first humans. They were directly from God and the only humans on earth. So of course their off spring had to mingle. However, as sin grew within people, the Lord ordered the law to be made which out lawed incest. (Leviticus 18, 19). Any form of intermingling now is incest. This isn't a flaw on the Word of God. This is the typical hearsay Christianity bashing. I repeated again because...you didn't read it.
2. You ignored it.
3. You need to cite a scripture (s). Because if you don't, then it's just hearsay.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. I did read it. You state 'So of course their off spring had to mingle' which means incest was God's plan, but then you state the 'Lord ordered the law to be made which out lawed incest.' This suggests that originally incest was not a sin, but now it is. I'm question why God made it a sin when originally he did not view it as sexual misconduct as he designed humans to have to commit it.
2. Okay, send me the quote then that says specifically that womankind cannot lie with womankind. There's the one stating women have sex that is lustful and have affection for lust that is fairly vague on what lust is committed, and one about how mankind shall not lie with each other as with womankind, which only mentions men. See? I didn't ignore it, it just doesn't mention lesbians.
3. Oh, you mean the scripture in the bible about a man marrying his brothers widow? Okay, so the hebrew version - “If a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an impurity; he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.” Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 16. However there was then this verse: Leviticus 20:21. Deuteronomy 25:5 states "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her." Which directly contradicts the first.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What's wrong with dressing non-feminine? Don't you know the difference between gender and biological sex organs?
Many lesbians also dress very feminine. Gender expression and sexuality are not intrinsically linked.
Also to do with your beliefs against non-straight people:
The main author of the KJV bible or King James was heavily rumoured to be a homosexual and he dressed quite effeminately in his time. Ironically, the Christians who use this bible most often are the ones who are the most fundamentalist or against homosexuality.
The condemning of homosexuality is an odd subject in the bible, because the New Testament states that the old Testament laws are abolished; which includes perhaps a the notorious "man shall not lie with man as he lies with a woman" in Leviticus along with other laws such as not eating pork or shellfish, and many mentions of divorce. Since the laws against homosexuality were abolished and divorce is mentioned throughout the entire bible, Jesus, and many prophets make no mention of homosexuality in the new testament, why is homosexuality now regarded as terrible and the number one fear of fundies today rather than the fact that divorce is legal and a ton of completely heterosexual people are "sexually immoral" because those things are more socially acceptable...they have more legality allocated to them after all?
I've seen more Christians accept pregnant teens who had super lustful pre-martial sex and got knocked up, but it was ok because they got married
But I've only like...one-fifth of Christians I know who accept celibate or abstinent homosexuals (ie saving it for a relationship, or marriage)
And it seems to me there's a double standard now favouring slutty heterosexuals just because they produce children whereas chaste homosexuals can never be accepted by God.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Seems like that you have lost your whole toolbox XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That one was old anyway. Got a new set now! www.smallbusinessbranding.com/…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You still have lost that toolbox
You need a new brain XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh really?
Then why don't I see a change on your shitty behavior?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because I'm not a follower like you are.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
so if someone dresses of the opposing sex, they're gay?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Most of the times, it indicates a mental problem.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
so wearing clothes of the opposite gender indicates that they have a mental problem?
and where did you find that bullshit? :^)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>