If you know that I could be telling the truth, nothing else has anything to do with it unless that whatever else will show undoubtedly I'm telling the truth.
The focus is truth and education, not preferences .
You're supposed to read what the Bible says. You couldn't show one scripture that says so called interracial marriage is a sin. Likewise no book, chapter and verse to show that interfaith means interracial.
Each passage has to be taken in its context to indicate the meaning of the word as it is used.
Case and point with the word "nation". Taking how it is applied in one text to fill it in another will confuse scripture lesson and doctrine.
Using the word as meaning holy nation or holy people in a passage about people from different lands of ancestry will mix up the identity of the interpretation. So if I say , let's go to a scripture where it indicates interracial marriage (which I interpret as interfaith marriage), you go to the book of Numbers where it indicates what you'll refer to as an interracial marriage . l'll say this is not an interracial marriage. The passage makes no reference to faith. You'd be totally confused of what I'm talking about due to my exteme radical extrapolation.
The description is clear, it's the terms, it's the criteria, basis and premise. Arguments must be made according to it or else it defeats its purpose .
When the description is not clear to anyone, ask as many questions as warranted for clarity. That's why I always extend that.
So that means you don't accept a challenge until something that is not clear is.
It would be defined by it's scriptural context. Now we can say the connection between all the contexts is a distinct group. That doesn't give us a complete definition. We have to go by how the word is used in a passage.
Depends on what you mean by SEXUAL intercourse. I'm referring to the act of penile penetration of the vagina. The only method in doing that act would be the insertion of an organ into another.
I don't know if you ever seen the movie "Rocky". The "Apollo Creed" character won by default. He wasn't satisfied though because he didn't actually beat Rocky. That's exactly what this is here, a technicality. Why not boast over a real knockout, a t.k.o., food for thought.
If you know that I could be telling the truth, nothing else has anything to do with it unless that whatever else will show undoubtedly I'm telling the truth.
The focus is truth and education, not preferences .
Maybe one day, it'll be a fact. Keep the faith my people.
Are you referring to homosexuality?
You're supposed to read what the Bible says. You couldn't show one scripture that says so called interracial marriage is a sin. Likewise no book, chapter and verse to show that interfaith means interracial.
Each passage has to be taken in its context to indicate the meaning of the word as it is used.
Case and point with the word "nation". Taking how it is applied in one text to fill it in another will confuse scripture lesson and doctrine.
Using the word as meaning holy nation or holy people in a passage about people from different lands of ancestry will mix up the identity of the interpretation. So if I say , let's go to a scripture where it indicates interracial marriage (which I interpret as interfaith marriage), you go to the book of Numbers where it indicates what you'll refer to as an interracial marriage . l'll say this is not an interracial marriage. The passage makes no reference to faith. You'd be totally confused of what I'm talking about due to my exteme radical extrapolation.
To those who get confused about definitions, I'm not giving THEEEEE definition of so called white supremacy or the so-called correct definition.
This is just a premise . Sometimes you have to just go with something being aware you can disprove something.
The description is clear, it's the terms, it's the criteria, basis and premise. Arguments must be made according to it or else it defeats its purpose .
When the description is not clear to anyone, ask as many questions as warranted for clarity. That's why I always extend that.
So that means you don't accept a challenge until something that is not clear is.
Correct, on the same side of the law. Both are either to be legal or illegal.
There is either scripture against it or not. The rest comes down to explaining your understanding of what you read.
It would be defined by it's scriptural context. Now we can say the connection between all the contexts is a distinct group. That doesn't give us a complete definition. We have to go by how the word is used in a passage.
I'll pose this question to you and it's quite simple and direct. Has Santa been proven to be false according to the claim?
It'll help in what sir or ma'am?
Depends on what you mean by SEXUAL intercourse. I'm referring to the act of penile penetration of the vagina. The only method in doing that act would be the insertion of an organ into another.
Ok agree to disagree.
Yes conditionally and fundamentally wrong. Unless you can explain what's meant by "conditional", what is the condition? Too vague and not clear.
Insertion of the phallus into the vaginal canal.
Uniform means one size fits all.
Design means purpose based on structure.
I see that we fail to understand. We may not admit to it but it may take a while to realize how things actually are setup.
I don't know if you ever seen the movie "Rocky". The "Apollo Creed" character won by default. He wasn't satisfied though because he didn't actually beat Rocky. That's exactly what this is here, a technicality. Why not boast over a real knockout, a t.k.o., food for thought.
What is the "vote con" about? A debate hasn't taken place.
Yes I can.
Context is in regards to monogamous affairs.
No I wouldn't be participating .
Thank you for your comment.
Very interesting to debate an opinion.