2208040400Th WHO IS WITHOUT SIN?

At the outset let me draw a line in the sand as it were. There is no amount of cajoling that can convince me that the prepubescence of any child, male or female, is not sacrosanct therefor inviolate. There just has got to be a limit somewhere to the immoral perpetude by the left?

Look as I might, I can’t find a reason that the word ‘racism’ doesn’t apply to this LGB something somethings? The word ‘racism’ is simply to all encompassing to be limited to the color of ones skin? Ascribing characteristic(s) to anyone based solely on their membership in a group of any sort still comes out racist – am I mistaken? We’ve just gotten it implanted in our collective psyche that racism is exclusive to race alone? Or perhaps dictionaries need revising on the matter? But I digress.

What I’m getting at is that lynchings like stonings are both wrong, or any other form of collective punishment. It appears to me that hidden deep in the recesses of our collective animal mind there lurk the belief that collective punishment is permissible some how? But devolution is not an option most people will choose if they recognize it for what it is?

When Scripture admonishes not to suffer not this type of person or that type of person it’s not authorizing you to commit murder by stoning or lynching them – is it? Why is it so hard for people to consider simply not socializing with them rather than murdering them and allow judges to do their jobs and judge? I’m not even speaking of shunning them, just socializing with them. Isn’t that better than have to answer for that judgment on the day of your own judgment?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
John 8:7 “So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, ……………” (kjv)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

PS1. I at first thought the ‘G’ word of which they speak was ‘gay.’ After which I find that word to be canceled is ‘groomer’ or ‘grooming’? How can that be when ‘grooming’ is applicable in so many different ways? Grooming is a perfectly good word that’s being hijacked to mean ONLY an act of perversion – am I wrong? Or is this just one more leftist exercise to ascertain how much control they actually have over us? I just don’t know?

PS2. Damn, these socialists are sick repugnant creatures aren’t they? Not socializing is not hate.

Posted by: The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters ~ Jul 23, 2022
“The G Word”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sac·ro·sanct
/ˈsakrōˌsaNGt/
adjective

1. (especially of a principle, place, or routine) regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with:

"the individual's right to work has been upheld as sacrosanct"

Word Origin:
late 15th century: from Latin sacrosanctus, from sacro ‘by a sacred rite’ (ablative of sacrum) + sanctus ‘holy’.

Powered by Oxford Dictionaries

eth·nic group
noun

1. a community or population made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent:

"the largest of six ethnic groups inhabiting the area of northern Sumatra"

Powered by Oxford Dictionari
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

eth·nic·i·ty
/eTHˈnisədē/
noun

1. the quality or fact of belonging to a population group or subgroup made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent:

"the interrelationship between gender, ethnicity, and class"

Powered by Oxford Dictionaries