>>8218816
if you see it that way,
you see it the way you do.
you attribute a 'dangerous implication' to my off-the-cuff words.
which ones did you dislike?
I think this whole gay thing today is an obvious slide, and it's too deep a topic for copy pasta of an obvious sort.
I am however, reminded of the Gospel of Luke in which, at that time in the garden, the young man was wearing only a robe, but lost it in the ensuing scuffle and ran off through the garden naked.
you don't say what you dislike about what I wrote. I didn't give it a lot of thought.
but my point: people use parts of scripture sometimes to try to hang shame on others.
they do that to control them. The whole 'gay culture' thing is one such control point.
you quote fragments of scripture is also a way of trying to assert control.
I am reminded of the story of Sodom. It's grim.
but it wasn't causual mutual massge between fellow wresltlers that was the sin of abomination. though so many love to conflate homosexuality to that. I welcome you to review the story of Lot, and how that city came to be damned. It's grim what the people did to strangers. that was the sin, not mutual massage.
the sins of covetousness are there whenever there is promiscuous sexuality, of any type. The sin of putting a false god before one, is also there often. and in your case, what are your dangerous implications?
you're not even a little bit close on understanding the heart of a gay man.
so I invite you to detail my 'dangerous implications' and explain their danger.
partial quotations of scripture out of context are also dangerous. Please review what the real sins were that went on in Sodom and G.
I would post a very terse detail but it's too shocking, I think, and I don't want to be that way now.
PS: I never implied that we can 'think anything we want' and don't know how you got that out of what I wrote earlier. Please explain.
your way is to drive the young man into the devil's arms. He's already damned, he might as well, in your point of view.