User

Democrats like @robosmith: OMG Trump is Hitler removing all these illegal immigrants! also OMG Trump is not removing anyone, nothing to brag about!

I just don't have patience for this crap anymore. You are either so lazy and ignorant you can't be bothered to research this or know you are full of shit and lying. Which is it? The context was that Trump had specific information about how he was hitting on women who worked at his club, not that he was breaking the law, not that he somehow knew everything about Epstein regarding the sexual abuse of women, or the rape and abuse of children.

You have replied by restating your conclusion, not by addressing the argument. Let’s deal directly with what you wrote. 1. The “plain English” of the verse doesn’t say what you claim. You quoted: “Ye shall not… for the dead … nor print any marks upon you.” But that is not two unrelated commands. It is one pair of actions forming a single prohibition. The structure in Hebrew is: do not cut your flesh for the dead and do not inscribe marks (same ritual category) This is why every major Hebrew lexicon and every major commentary identifies one context: Pagan mourning rites—not general body art. Repeating your conclusion doesn’t change the textual reality. **2. You still haven’t addressed the actual point: Holiness laws in Leviticus are not automatically universal.** You wrote: “The fact it was part of pagan mourning rites does not diminish the command today.” Except it does — because this is precisely how Scripture treats ceremonial laws. If you apply this logic consistently, you must also keep: Leviticus 19:19 — no mixed fabrics Leviticus 19:23 — no eating fruit for the first 3 years Leviticus 19:26 — no eating rare meat Leviticus 19:27 — no trimming beard edges Leviticus 19:34 — equal land rights for foreigners Leviticus 19:36 — specific weights & measures laws Leviticus 19:17 — you must “rebuke your neighbor” Leviticus 19:32 — you must “stand in the presence of the aged” These are all in the same chapter, in the same “holiness” section. Yet you do not keep them. You only extract one verse because it suits an argument. That is not biblical interpretation. That is selective literalism. 3. The appeal to “holiness” is not enough to create a universal prohibition. You wrote: “The chapter is about being holy. That never changed.” Holiness never changed — but what expresses holiness DID change, according to Scripture. This is explicitly stated: “You are not under the law but under grace.” — Romans 6:14 “He has made the first covenant obsolete.” — Hebrews 8:13 “Let no one judge you… with regard to festivals, food, drink, or rituals.” — Colossians 2:16–17 “These were a shadow… the substance belongs to Christ.” — Colossians 2:17 Holiness = belonging to God It does not equal “do not tattoo.” Nothing in the New Testament makes that connection. 4. You are asserting a rule that the Bible itself never makes. Your argument boils down to: “It says mark → therefore all marking is sin for all Christians forever.” But the Bible nowhere says: tattoos = sinful body markings = sinful ink = sinful symbols on skin = sinful art on the body = sinful Leviticus 19:28 = universally moral law If God wanted to prohibit all body marking for all people at all times, Scripture would say so. Instead, it gives one historically-specific command in a long list of ceremonial regulations within the Mosaic covenant. You haven’t shown otherwise. You have simply repeated your personal conclusion. 5. Summary You still have not answered: Why all the other holiness laws from the same chapter are not binding Why the NT never repeats this prohibition Why tattoos are uniquely singled out Why covenant distinctions are ignored Why ceremonial, civil, and moral categories are collapsed Why pagan mourning rites = modern tattoos Why your standard doesn’t condemn ear piercing, hair cutting, or surgery Why your interpretation contradicts every major commentary across traditions Simply restating: “It says marks, so it applies today” is not an argument. It is circular reasoning. If you want to make a biblical case, you need to address the actual text, the context, the covenant, and the New Testament. You have not done so. Whenever you are ready to engage those points directly, the conversation can continue.

I don’t believe much of anything you say. I mean, some of it is so obviously a lie, it doesn’t even matter. There is nothing to believe, just call you out.

I figured as much. Why lie? Why sit here saying you don’t support illegal immigration when you do? Changing the subject is so pathetic and spamming me is just a dishonest tactic. Especially when I answer you in other threads when you post BS and you run away. What illegal orders? Be specific. You are playing this dumb game, you got your latest left wing talking point, so you are spreading it.

So, what are you personally doing to help save all these lives? How many have you killed?

You should worry more about yourself here in this thread.

This doesn’t explain your defense of illegal immigration and opposition to basic law enforcement efforts in repeated threads. You. Are. A. Liar. But let’s clear the air then, go ahead and confirm: Do you support ICE and their law enforcement efforts to deport illegal immigrants?

Oh man... what a conspiracy that even the Democrats and Biden were in on it too!

Nope. It is OK, Mulder. The truth is out there! OMG, yes, YOUR conspiracy nonsense... in that YOU keep bringing up the Conspiracy. The irony here is that you spend all this time crying about taking things literally in the Bible and you can't even grasp what I was saying here. LOL Plenty of them have been and continue to be. Says the guy who has repeatedly accused me of saying things I have not and argued against things I have not said. Even now, you play dumb on what I was asking, so you can cowardly avoid answering. No, sadly, I am not stupid or emotional enough to sink down far enough to get to you. Another hasty generalization. When you are ready to be more specific and answer my question, let me know. Another fallacy! Keep going, you can hit them all! More projection. Well, at least I understand the basic concepts... unlike you.

Nope. Feel free to go back. Go quote me if you want to respond to something I said now. This whole conspiracy stuff is your invention. The truth is out there! Nope. It was dreamt up in your imagination. What was? I mean, your conspiracy nonsense certainly is, among other things I already called out. Many of your comments have been wrong, and you clearly have little understanding of basic concepts of Christianity. More projection.

"decimating" No, we live in reality; you are the one living in an alternate one.

You. Are. A. Liar. Things you have said: " Trump has created an enemy for you. He has made you believe that illegal immigrants are a threat to the nation. But they aren't." In several threads, you have defended illegal immigration and criticized enforcement efforts.

Truly, a legend in your own mind!

Ah yes, the classic dishonest tactic where you pretend like you don’t know what is going on.

Quite the juxtaposition here. Not sure what your point is. It’s almost like you folks on the left are desperate liars trying to impugn Trump through implying things because you don’t have any actual fact based arguments. But sure… you only care about the truth.

Well, this isn’t true. You know it’s not true. Then you go on to claim you only care about the truth.

Oh wow, think of how many people you kill every month when you go to the movies, eat out, subscribe to some streaming service...

We are not the ones confusing these things. You are being dishonest, referring to it as "gender expression" now, when the folks pushing this refer to it as an identity, an identity that defines someone and should be affirmed, as well as treating them as if they really are what they identify as. Lets test this out, but it seems you are a coward hiding from me too. Can you define woman in any meaningful way? Do you think that someone who "expresses" themselves as a gender they are not, are really that gender and we should all treat them that way and change the language as if they were? We understand just fine. Do you? We are not the ones pushing dudes into girls spaces or into their sports acting like a dude who thinks he is a woman actually is one and has no real advantages over women...

The way it is being used is the same. Your examples here are a perfect example for what a load of BS this list is. Trump didn't not pay public defenders since July, Congress passed a CR that kept 2025 funding frozen at 2024 levels, and the costs exceeded the appropriations and ran out in July. OMG, Trump is an authoritarian! Closing Siesmic monitoring stations in Alaska... OMG, Authoritarian! You read the fine print, Biden administration ended these grants in 2024, Alaska picked up the bill hoping they would be renewed this year. They were not. See, this is why this list is BS. No, your list did. "Anti-immigrant or Militarised Nationalism" Still shit no less.

LOL... "Hollowing State / Weakening Federal Institutions" So, your big argument here is to change the subject. The point remains, that list is full of shit.

Yeah, OK, that is not how this started, at all. Feel free to go back to the beginning. Only in your brain man. Now you are just making crap up. I mean, not that you have cared much about being factual or logical up to this point. If... Instead of arguing against "If" statements you are fabricating, let me know when you want to respond to something I have actually said. You been watching X-Files reruns or something? Why the sudden use of this conspiracy term? ROFL I was attacking your ignorant and wrong comments about the Bible, Christianity, and basic Christian concepts. Also, you already took the mask off as you mocked my belief in God. So, you don't get to pretend like you are all just some poor little innocent guy on this forum anymore.

Now you are being obtuse. On its face, it is a list about authoritarianism, and then it creates a category for how Trump is reducing the size and scope of the federal government... LOL Also, typical leftist nonsense in trying to define authoritarianism as enforcing existing immigration laws and not allowing the open borders lawlessness to continue, which leftists support.

I mean, you know this is BS, right?

He is too busy trying to make the "other forum" work for the rejects from here, like Black Dog.