Tomas lie, abomination

1. What the claim actually says — a legalistic parsing that matters

The original string reads as two shorthand assertions: first, that a person called "Tomas" is lying; second, that this person is an "abomination." The provided material shows the word "abomination" appears primarily as a biblical descriptor in Leviticus 18:22, applied to specific sexual conduct in some translations, not to named individuals ^{[1] [2]}. Other documents in the dataset record people using the word subjectively — for example, a chef calling "brunch" an "abomination" — demonstrating the term's frequent use as moral rhetoric rather than empirical fact ^[4]. None of the supplied analyses contain a direct identification of a Tomas who is proven to have lied or been declared an abomination by credible evidence; the assertion collapses distinct categories — alleged behavior (lying) and moral condemnation (abomination) — without supporting documentation ^{[5] [6]}.

2. Biblical context: what "abomination" means and what it does not mean here

The materials cite Leviticus 18 and the translation of Leviticus 18:22, where a sexual act is called "an abomination" in many English translations; this is a descriptive note about ancient legal-religious codes, not a forensic judgment about named contemporary individuals ^{[1] [2]}. Scholarship and commentary referenced in the analyses indicate debate over interpretation and scope, showing that the biblical label can be contested and applied differently across traditions ^[1]. Thus, invoking Leviticus to label a particular modern person "an abomination" requires additional premises and evidence not supplied in these documents; the sources underscore a semantic gap between scriptural terminology and assertions about specific people ^[5].

3. Claims of lying: allegations in the corpus and their limits

Some entries discuss investigations and allegations involving public figures — for instance, reporting around Tom Homan and an FBI sting that produced allegations later closed without charges — which the analyses report as unresolved with officials saying no credible evidence of criminal conduct was found ^[3]. That record illustrates how a public allegation can be widely reported yet not amount to proven lying, and it underscores that an accusation of lying requires documentary or adjudicative support. The supplied analyses explicitly note the lack of definitive proof for a claim that "Tom (or Tomas) lies," making such a charge unsubstantiated within the provided dataset ^{[3] [6]}.

4. Multiple Thomases in supplied analyses — conflation risk and agendas

The dataset references several different people named Thomas/Thom (e.g., Thomas Carlyle, Tom Homan, a judge Harriet Thompson, chef Thomas Straker) and shows that the same or similar names are being conflated across contexts, which risks producing false identification ^{[7] [8] [4]}. Some items manifest clear editorial or rhetorical agendas — moralizing uses of "abomination" in religious commentary or opinion pieces, and critical reporting on public officials — and the analyses flag such agendas where evident. Consequently, asserting that "Tomas" is an abomination may reflect polemic or identity conflation rather than verifiable fact; the corpus repeatedly separates opinion, religious language, and unresolved allegations ^{[5] [8]}.

5. Bottom line: what the sources support and the gaps you should notice

Across the provided analyses, there is no sourced, date-stamped proof that a specific Tomas lied or was objectively shown to be an "abomination." Biblical texts cite the word as applied to acts, not individuals; journalism excerpts describe investigations or outspoken opinions but either show unresolved allegations or self-described opinions; and several references explicitly state the absence of direct evidence linking the phrase to any Tomas named in these documents ^{[2] [3] [4] [6]}. If you need a verdict about a particular Tomas, the next step is clear: identify the exact individual, supply contemporaneous documentary evidence (dated reports, adjudications, or direct quotes), and distinguish between legal findings, journalistic allegations, and moral rhetoric before drawing factual conclusions ^{[1] [7]}.