|
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant ShieldsFamily wrote: No, that is not what it is about. It is making
the point that, since God’s word is no longer
relevant, His laws against sodomy are irrelevant. And that’s a good
point— if you
don’t believe in keeping ALL of God’s laws, how do you pick and
choose? Izzy Duh! You choose the ones that are still in
effect. :-) Well, duh!, what are they? Izzy
So which one forbids sodomy? Izzy
|
- Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant ShieldsFamily
- Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant Lance Muir
- RE: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Cove... ShieldsFamily
- Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral ... Lance Muir
- RE: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilate... ShieldsFamily
- Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Un... Lance Muir
- RE: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical... ShieldsFamily
- RE: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral ... Slade Henson
- Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant Terry Clifton
- RE: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Cove... Slade Henson
- Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral ... Terry Clifton

