The Gay Denomination?

[99percentatheism]

The Gay Denomination.

For those people that desire same gender sexual behavior or thoughts, AND that claim to be a Christian and claim that their beliefs and theology can fit the New Testament witness, instead of waging an endless, fruitless and vicious war on other Christians - that will NEVER accept their gay doctrines and dogmas . . ., - why won't they just declare a new and alternative denomination, just like Watch Tower theological adherants and Mormons?

Why the need to join forces with anti-Christian and secularist movements to attack "Bible believing" Christians?

Afterall, in referencing the New Testament, there is no justifiable comparison of sex acts to being a slave (slavery), or the charge of bigotry and hatefulness in holding that marriage is a man and a woman.

Why not just start an "Out and Proud" Gay Denomination?

[otseng]

I would expect a person that has renounced Christ and The Church, wouldn't affirm historic Christian truth on homosexuality as inappropriate for Christians?

Thinly veiled? Certainly not. No more so than what Paul talks about in Hebrews 6.

You have renounced Christ. Your views on this matter theologically stand where they do.

Moderator Comment

These are still considered personal comments. It doesn't matter what a person's belief system is in debates. Addressing the person would still be an ad hominem.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[cnorman18]

I deny and reject your charges that I am prersonally insutlng you.

I said "attacking" not "insulting." And that, you most certainly were doing. Your continual snide remarks about my religion could have no other purpose, and in any case they are, inarguably and absolutely, PERSONAL REMARKS that have no place in this debate.

In any case, my beliefs remain irrelevant to the question on the table; their only apparent relevance here is in that you think they give you an excuse to attack me personally.

You say you were once a Christian. You must have read Matthew 4:1-11 right? Much afront can come through query.

And now you plainly equate me with Satan. Another blatant personal attack.

Your renouncing of Jesus is fom your own mouth. I have noted it. Nothing more and nothing less.

No, you have not. I have never used the word "renounce" in relation to Jesus or Christianity, not once, and I do not regard my conversion in a deprecatory and condemnatory manner as you do; and, once again, my religion is irrelevant to our conversation, and is a personal matter upon which you have no warrant or authority to speak.

Further, anyone who reads Matthew 4 together with your remark above can plainly see that you are comparing my asking you a simple, factual question to Satan's asking questions of Jesus. If that isn't an attack, I don't know what one would look like.

I'm not Satan -- and you're not Jesus.

No different than my referencing "progressive and liberal" and "gay theology" and those that preach it.

Which is also irrelevant to our conversation, since my question has nothing to do with theology at all, but only with a matter of objective fact in the present day.

It is a reference to what you said and not an insult or attack.

I have never said anything about "progressive" or "liberal" or "gay" theology here. ALL your references to my religion were and remain personal remarks, and were clearly intended to disparage me and my beliefs. Deny it if you like; their meaning was clear.

I have to leave for a meeting and will address your lengthy reply later on today.

Excellent. See if you can actually respond to my actual points and statements when you do, as opposed to distracting, deflecting, or distorting them and changing the subject -- and see if you can do it without sneering at my religion.

[99percentatheism]

I would expect a person that has renounced Christ and The Church, wouldn't affirm historic Christian truth on homosexuality as inappropriate for Christians? That is not insult, it is just a historical observation. And of course you have the right to believe as you do. Including renouncing Christ and the Church. It is a same ol' same ol' here at this website and every other debate site I've been to where Evangelical Christians dare to enter. Just a notice pal.

My question had, and has, nothing to do with your religious beliefs, but only with a factual matter of the present day. Your unrelenting efforts to hide behind that issue while coyly dropping hints about your true thoughts on that FACTUAL matter has long since grown tiresome.

Obviously not. You can't tear yourself away from this thread. How many times have you UN-retired?

Another ad hominem sneer.

So have your thinly veiled gibes directed at my conversion.

Thinly veiled? Certainly not.

Oh, so it was an OPEN and DIRECT gibe?

No more so than what Paul talks about in Hebrews 6.

Quoting Hebrews 6 to a convert is as much a personal attack as quoting Psalm 14 to an atheist. Once more; the question is about a matter of fact in the present day. My religion and yours are both irrelevant, though it seems I am compelled here to keep referring to such matters to defend myself against your attacks and sneers.

I have said, very many times, that I retain a deep respect and even reverence for the Christian faith; I say only that it is no longer my own.

You have renounced Christ. Your views on this matter theologically stand where they do.

Contemptuous dismissal of my sincere statement noted.

In any case, my beliefs remain irrelevant to the question on the table; their only apparent relevance here is in that you think they give you an excuse to attack me personally.

I have marveled at your talent to lead the argument to me as the monster.

By asking a simple question?

You say you were once a Christian. You must have read Matthew 4:1-11 right? Much afront can come through query.

And now you plainly equate me with Satan. Another blatant personal attack.

I watch how politics is driven to legalize drugs and demand the unfettered slaughter of the unborn by labeling any limits to abortion as "an attack" with the use of the same tactics.

Where have I said anything at all about either of those issues?

Look at the word "tactic".

Answer the question. Where have I said anything at all about either of those topics?

This is called "misdirection" and "distraction," a favorite tactic of yours. It is futile.

Rather, it is called "analogy."

“Red herring� is the proper debating term. You ring in topics that your opponent has not mentioned and that are irrelevant to the question at hand, which, once again, is about a matter of objective fact; the normative and typical behavior of gays in the present day.

And it is very telling that you, a person that has renounced Christ and the Church, would post the pro-homosexuality "Churches and denominations" that you do. Of course.

Why is that? Is everyone who converts to a different religion from Christianity necessarily a part of the homosexual conspiracy that you so fervently believe in?

Obvioulsy not. Some have renounced Christ for Islam. Some even for Orthodox Judaism. But, I notice that the liberal camp of the renounced crowd have a homogenization for supporting gay pride and homosexuality, and very much so in opposition to Bible-Affirming Evangelical Christianity.

Like you “notice� conspiratorial gays in half of the New Testament and in every movement or political position you disagree with?

Now, do I need to remind you that more than a billion Christians do not follow the modern "progressive" views and gay theology of those Churches and denoms you hail as good examples?

Where did I "hail" them as anything?

You did just that.

I acknowledged their existence in order to counter your claim that they do not exist, as noted below. Does that constitute “hailing� anything?

Here is a news flash: acknowledging the existence of something is not the same as promoting it. That applies to those churches, too; toleratiing homosexuality isn't the same as promoting it.

Well, rust shows you what tolerating it does.

THAT is why I keep coming back to this thread; you can’t concede a single point, even if it’s 100% logical and factual. You ALWAYS twist and distort and use phony analogies and fake comparisons to support your point -- but without EVER daring to make it straight out, as in directly answering the simple, plain, factual question on the table.

Don’t claim that you HAVE answered it; you switched the clear meaning of the question in order to promote your agenda, and you STILL refuse to answer it directly and honestly.

I don’t keep coming back to this thread because I find your posts frustrating: I keep coming back because it’s very satisfying, and often even amusing, to keep exposing your clumsy sophistry and your hateful agenda, over and over and over, while you remain blissfully unaware of how transparent and phony your arguments are being proven to be, over and over and over.

But history repeats now doesn't it. But the following doesn't include all those "Christian Denominations" that the secular pro-homosexuality world has no problem with. (As you have so deftly supplied):

The historian Tacitus regarded Christianity as ‘a pernicious superstition’; Suetonius described it as ‘novel and mischievous’; Pliny the Younger as ‘depraved and extravagant.’

[More quotes from the ancients. What's your point? That not everyone was a Christian in ancient Rome? We knew that.

It shows what we have been up against since the foundation of the faith.

Nonsense. Christianity has been the dominant religion and culture in the West since the fall of Rome. The fact that SOME Christians consider ANY disagreement with their version of that faith (invariably a repressive and oppressive iteration of it) to be an "attack" and evidence of a grand "conspiracy" does not make Christianity itself an object of persecution.

Now there are some FACTS. Let’s see how you twist it or substitute some fake comparison or simply mount another ad hominem attack against me, using my conversion or evil liberalism or whatever as an excuse -- as opposed to actually refuting, or even attempting to refute, the FACTS that I have stated.

See? Satisfying.

I'm betting that perniscious would carry with it the labels of hatred and bigotry.

Care to prove that from Tacitus? I don't think that "hatred and bigotry" were among his concerns. Perhaps you can prove differently.

The persecutions/executions of Christians for converting would show support of my position.

I would say that that supports the thesis that “hatred and bigotry� were directed at THEM. I don’t see that it shows anything about their being ACCUSED of such.

Honestly, it's so clear that you see horrible GAY conspirators under every bed and behind every door throughout time, and assume that every enemy the Church has ever had was its enemy only and solely because he was GAY, and that anyone who doesn't totally agree with you is probably GAY himself, and so clearly preach that the Church's greatest concern and greatest enemy must be homosexuality because, simply put, GAY = EVIL...

I think I have listed one or two things more thretening to the Church than the humanistic cause of the gay agenda. Islam and and atheistic secularsm.

Shall we count the number of posts you have to your credit, respectively, on all these subjects?

Well, one wonders why you yourself have never noticed that other people don't think that way, not even other Christians (which was the one and only point of posting that list of gay-tolerant churches).

You realize that I wrote the OP right? So, obviously I know that.

Hm. Point taken, and you’re right.

See? Admitting that one is wrong is easy, even commendable.

Tacitus went as far as calling the Christians enemies of mankind. Therefore it is not surprising that ordinary people attributed to Christians all sorts of monstrosities such as infanticide and cannibalism, etc. According to Tertullian, ‘Christians to the lions’ became the obligatory catch-cry of every riot.

And now, for you, it's GAYS who are "enemies of mankind," and you attribute to them all sorts of monstrosities --like sexual predation, 100% indiscriminate promiscuity, plotting to destroy the Church and decent society, and all the horrors in Paul's diatribe.

"Gay" is a neologism of the 20th century. But the homosexual lifestyle has been around since Greece and pederasty.

Ah. And once again, you insert a blatant change of subject in order to dodge the obvious questions; Is it GAYS who are now the “enemies of mankind�? Do you not attribute to them all sorts of “monstrosities�?

Fascinating how skilled you are -- or, at least, how skilled you THINK your are -- at ducking a question while posturing as being forthright and courageous.

And, I'll bet you know nothing of Sappho.

That would be correct; at least, very little. But then I am not as obsessed as you with reading about, researching, and intensively studying the history and literature and pornography and anything else I can get my hands on about homosexuals.

One wonders why, since you know so much about the history and culture and behavior of gays throughout the ages, that it’s so hard for you to answer a simple, direct question of objective fact about gay behavior in the present day....

Gee, you're right; history DOES repeat itself. How long before you call "Gays to the lions"?

Odd bit of inaccurate history Norm. It was the "Bi-Sexual" Nero , a man that married two men, that sent the Christians to the Lions.

And another obvious duck and dodge. You very clearly promote the idea that gays should be despised and feared and barred from contact with the rest of society. I’ll be HAPPY to quote from your posts on other threads to prove that.

While Christians were following this moral position:

The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

And that is what some of you were.

But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Corinthians 6

Quoting more Scripture about events in the first century -- but still no answer about events in the present day. Do you not promote the idea that gays should be despised and feared and barred from contact with the rest of society? And is that not because of your UNSTATED opinions on the question I keep posing to you?

And we already know what Paul wrote to the Romans. Now don't we.

Care to clarify that, as opposed to coyly using innuendo and not even specifying so much as a CHAPTER? Was that yet another sneer directed at my conversion, or not?

Though I suppose now that would just be tacit approval of the beatings and murders that gays are subjected to by homophobic thugs -- you don't deny that those things actually happen, do you?

Exagerated for political gain.

Contemptuous dismissal of tragic events noted.

But I do not dent that gays get beat up. I have seeen what happens to gays by other gays too. I have worked outreach to the "Boy's Town" area of several major cities.

And another switch to a different subject, dismissing FACTS as “exagerated� [sic] and turning to another allegation against gays -- without numbers or statistics or evidence of any kind, just your own opinion.

Can you post the numbers, since you know so much about this issue? HOW MANY gays are beat up and murdered by homophobic thugs, versus how many gays are beat up and murdered by other gays? Your IMPRESSION is predictable; do you have any FACTS?

I'm tempted to ask if you think homosexuals deserve capital punishment, as the Bible (the Hebrew Bible, let us note) prescribes, but I don't think I want to know.

YOUR HEBREW BIBLE Norm.

Your point? Can you make it clear for once, instead of dropping coy hints and snide innuendo?

But I don't see any violence "in the Name of Christ" being offered to me against anyone. It's laughable that you are grasping at those straws at this late a date in our interactions. Fairly weak argument Norm.

How is it a weak argument? You cite the Bible in every post, claim to follow it precisely as written, and quote it extensively and at length and very frequently. Do you advocate following the punishments as mandated in it, or not?

If not, why not? Surely you aren’t kowtowing to the liberal and forgiving spirit of the present corrupt and dissolute age?

(Does anyone expect a direct answer here? I don’t. Past experience almost guarantees that none will be forthcoming.)

Now, who is supportive of these gay-affirming "Churches" and gay sex (practicing homosexuals) celebrating "Christians"?

Well, the Christians who attend them would come first on that list...

The list written long ago by Jude.

Yeah, Jude again, where you see gays in every line -- and where they are never mentioned.

The non and anti Christians right? I mean you seem to be very supportive of the homosexuality promoting churches right?

I acknowledge their existence and do not fume and fulminate against them and claim that they are not Christian. If that's "support," I guess I do.

As long as they can be identified by their fruit I acknowlede them too.

You mean, as long as you can continue to maintain that nothing positive whatever should EVER be attributed to gays under any circumstances, in order to promote that gays be despised and hated and discriminated against in every possible way?

That’s not “acknowledgement.� I think we all know exactly WHAT it is.

Is that not a fair description of your position? If it isn’t, please prove it by posting something that you have said about gays that is unambiguously positive, or some way in which gays OUGHT to be welcomed and accepted in the greater society (as opposed to being kept separate in some “gay ghetto� which you have explicitly proposed elsewhere). If you can’t do that, my characterization of your agenda will remain uncontradicted.

In general, I have little or nothing to say about ANY religious organization other than my own; I only speak up when I see a PRACTICE that I find objectionable -- and YOU KNOW that I have often said that it's the right and privilege of ANY Church to oppose homosexuality and refuse to sanction or celebrate gay marriage. I don't agree, but then I don't agree with vegetarians either, and neither are any of my business. The "objectionable practices" that I refer to would include, e.g., the WestBoro Baptist Church and their calculated provocations.

When ALL ELSE FAILS pull the Phelps card.

And yet another dodge of the salient point and a switch to another subject in order to get away with it. This one’s especially obvious.

Did I mention Phelps’s demonstrations in relation to you? He preaches “God Hates Jews� too, you know; but my chief objection to his ideas isn’t even that. As with most people, it’s that he pickets funerals and deliberately inflicts pain on people who are already mourning. That has nothing whatever to do with you, but as usual, if the word “gay� is anywhere within shouting distance, that’s all you can see.

When ALL ELSE FAILS, pull the “persecution� card. You plainly saw an attack where there was none.

Was God supportive of the Isrealites that sought to live as the pagans did? It resulted in diaspora.

Don't pontificate about the history of MY religion. You don't know enough about it.

Wanna bet? Judaism is an easy read. From the Babylonian captivity until today. My mother is Jewish.

Oops. Guess what that makes me?

Just like those in the first century Church huh?

I don’t think I’m going to acknowledge your gibes and sneers and attacks on my religion any longer, except to report them.

Here is a challenge for you (or any other pro homosexuality person here) if you are up to it. Please post a sermon from a Gay affirming Preacher and/or denomination, that would preach and teach that homosexual behavior OF and/or by non homosexual youth is wrong, immoral and sinful. AND, that "gay sex before gay marrige" is immoral behavior.

OK?

Actually, that is the position of the people at GayChristian101. Click on the link and see for yourself. You didn't think such people existed, did you?

Oops.

You must have gotten the link from one of my earlier posts right?

Oops again.

No, I found that site myself. And is that all you have to say?

I note once again that you duck the point; that here is a gay Christian who preaches exactly the things you demanded to see. No acknowledgement of that -- only another lame and irrelevant ad hominem.

See? How satisfying it is, to show how phony and false your arguments are, and to show, over and over and OVER, how you duck and dodge and move goalposts and even ignore responses that you yourself demand -- as you clearly did here.

Talk about Jude's history repeating itself:

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

You keep insisting that homosexuality is the one, sole subject of Jude's letter. I ask again; are there no other kinds of "sexual immorality and perversion"? Has the Church no other enemies?

No answer to this, as usual.

And finally, of course -- how about a straight-up, forthright, direct and no-nonsense answer?

Are virtually all gays promiscuous and predatory monsters who prey on straights and attempt to "recruit" them into their ranks? Yes or no?

Adv. 1. virtually - in essence or effect but not in fact; "the strike virtually paralyzed the city"; "I'm virtually broke"

virtually - (of actions or states) slightly short of or not quite accomplished; all but; "the job is (just) about done"; "the baby was almost asleep when the alarm sounded"; "we're almost finished"; "the car all but ran her down"; "he nearly fainted"; "talked for nigh onto 2 hours"; "the recording is well-nigh perfect"; "virtually all the parties signed the contract"; "I was near exhausted by the run"; "most everyone agrees"

Here’s the rest of that entry:

virtually
adverb practically, almost, nearly, in effect, in essence, as good as, to all intents and purposes, in all but name, for all practical purposes, effectually After the divorce she was left virtually penniless.

Why don't you tell me what you think my position is cnorman18?

I don’t claim to know. That’s why I’m ASKING.

You only drop hints and coy allusions and sly innuendo, and you never, as in NOT EVER, acknowledge or mention any attribute or action or characteristic of gays that is not WHOLLY EVIL and DESPICABLE. That certainly leaves an impression, but impressions can be deceiving -- especially when they are intended to be.

Again: that’s why I’m ASKING. Why won’t you just ANSWER?

Let me rephrase the question, since you are having trouble (read; pretending to be having trouble) with the word virtually:

Are the overwhelming majority of gays promiscuous and predatory monsters who prey on straights and attempt to "recruit" them into their ranks? Yes or no?

Want to REALLY freak me out? Give an actual, direct, unambiguous answer.

I don't want to freak you out at all. I just want to focus on the OP instead of playing cat and mouse with your agenda.

But here goes from a good reference piece by a NARTH guy. What I like about it, is that history is not sidestepped for political propaganda:

April, 2010-- Today, with same-sex marriage being hotly debated, the promiscuous nature of gay relationships, especially those of gay men, is becoming more widely recognized.

In 1948, Kinsey observed that long-term homosexual relationships were notably few. Now, more than fifty years later, long-term gay male relationships may be more common, but the fact remains that they are typically not monogamous.

In one recent study of gay male couples, 41.3% had open sexual agreements with some conditions or restrictions, and 10% had open sexual agreements with no restrictions on sex with outside partners. One-fifth of participants (21.9%) reported breaking their agreement in the preceding 12 months, and 13.2% of the sample reported having unprotected anal intercourse in the preceding three months with an outside partner of unknown or discordant HIV-status (1).

This study follows the classic research of McWhirter and Mattison, reported in The Male Couple (1984), which found that not a single male pair was able to maintain fidelity in their relationship for more than five years. Outside affairs, the researchers found, were not damaging to the relationship’s endurance, but were in fact essential to it. “The single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel,� says the authors (p. 256).

The gay community has long walked a thin public-relations line, presenting their relationships as equivalent to those of heterosexual married couples. But many gay activists portray a very different cultural ethic. Michelangelo Signorile describes the campaign “to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely--to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.� (1974, p 3).

Research Findings on Promiscuity

In 1968, Hoffman stated: “Sexual promiscuity is one of the most striking, distinguishing features of gay life in America� (p. 45). A much-cited study by Bell and Weinberg (1978), published by the Kinsey Institute, and often called the most ambitious study of homosexuality ever attempted, gathered its data before the AIDS crisis had begun. This study showed that 28 percent of homosexual males had had sexual encounters with one thousand or more partners. Furthermore, 79 percent said more than half of their sex partners were strangers. Only 1 percent of the sexually active men had had fewer than five lifetime partners. The authors concede: “Little credence can be given to the supposition that homosexual men’s ‘promiscuity’ has been overestimated� (p.82). “Almost half of the white homosexual males…said that they had had at least 500 different sexual partners during the course of their homosexual careers,� (p. 85).

A few years later, Pollak (1985) described sexual behavior among gays as “an average several dozen partners a year� and “some hundreds in a lifetime� with “tremendous promiscuity� (p.44). He said:

The homosexual pick-up system is the product of a search for efficiency and economy in attaining the maximization of “yield� (in numbers of partners and orgasms) and the minimization of “cost� (waste of time and risk of one’s advances being rejected). Certain places are known for a particular clientele and immediate consummation: such as “leather� bars, which often have a back room specially reserved for the purpose, saunas and public parks. (p. 44)

William Aaron’s autobiographical book Straight draws similar conclusions:

In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to “absorb� masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners]. Constantly the most successful homophile “marriages� are those where there is an agreement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement. [p. 208]

He concludes:

Gay life is most typical and works best when sexual contacts are impersonal and even anonymous. As a group the homosexuals I have known seem far more preoccupied with sex than heterosexuals are, and far more likely to think of a good sex life as many partners under many exciting circumstances. [p.209]


http://josephnicolosi.com/an-open-secre ... uth-about/

[99percentatheism]

cnorman18

I deny and reject your charges that I am prersonally insutlng you.

I said "attacking" not "insulting." And that, you most certainly were doing. Your continual snide remarks about my religion could have no other purpose, and in any case they are, inarguably and absolutely, PERSONAL REMARKS that have no place in this debate.

You introduced your renouncing of your Christian faith. For whatever reason you felt compelled to do so in this debate. I have my beliefs as to why you did so, but it was you that entered them in for whatever reason.

In any case, my beliefs remain irrelevant to the question on the table; their only apparent relevance here is in that you think they give you an excuse to attack me personally.

Your choices of beliefs make up your worldview and reasons for having opinions. You decided to enter in that you left Christianity. That has profound consequences to this debate.

You say you were once a Christian. You must have read Matthew 4:1-11 right? Much afront can come through query.

And now you plainly equate me with Satan. Another blatant personal attack.

Your renouncing of Jesus is fom your own mouth. I have noted it. Nothing more and nothing less.

No, you have not. I have never used the word "renounce" in relation to Jesus or Christianity, not once,

Evasion noted. It is a fact that you have to renounce Christ as your Savior to embrace Judaism. I have many, many, many, Jewish friends and several are Rabbi's.

and I do not regard my conversion in a deprecatory and condemnatory manner as you do; and, once again, my religion is irrelevant to our conversation, and is a personal matter upon which you have no warrant or authority to speak.

It is most relevant to our interactions. Why you would claim it doesn't it odd.

Further, anyone who reads Matthew 4 together with your remark above can plainly see that you are comparing my asking you a simple, factual question to Satan's asking questions of Jesus. If that isn't an attack, I don't know what one would look like.

I'm not Satan -- and you're not Jesus.

You must not know as much about "Judaism" as you purport. The word "satan" means adversary in Judaism. Remember, you are not a Christian by your own admission.

And jabbing that I am not Jesus is redundancy. Obviously I have handled the New Testament historically accurate.

No different than my referencing "progressive and liberal" and "gay theology" and those that preach it.

Which is also irrelevant to our conversation, since my question has nothing to do with theology at all, but only with a matter of objective fact in the present day.

Worldviews and personal beleif systems play heavily on/in debate.

It is a reference to what you said and not an insult or attack.

I have never said anything about "progressive" or "liberal" or "gay" theology here. ALL your references to my religion were and remain personal remarks, and were clearly intended to disparage me and my beliefs. Deny it if you like; their meaning was clear.

You introduced your personal religious stance. I totally deny attacking or insulting you.

I have to leave for a meeting and will address your lengthy reply later on today.

Excellent. See if you can actually respond to my actual points and statements when you do, as opposed to distracting, deflecting, or distorting them and changing the subject --

In your opinion. I have more than supplied direct answers to your demands.

. . . and see if you can do it without sneering at my religion.

In your opinion it is sneering. In my opinion it is placing our interactions in historical context. But I will apologize that you see my directness about your rejecting Christian life and embracing Judaism as an attack or sneering etc., etc.. . But you aren't demanding that I deny the reality of that choice are you? You are not claiming that my position is wrong about accepting Judaism via leaving Christianity right?

[otseng]

Your choices of beliefs make up your worldview and reasons for having opinions. You decided to enter in that you left Christianity. That has profound consequences to this debate.

Evasion noted. It is a fact that you have to renounce Christ as your Savior to embrace Judaism. I have many, many, many, Jewish friends and several are Rabbi's.

It is most relevant to our interactions. Why you would claim it doesn't it odd.

Moderator Comment

I'll say it only once more. It does not matter what a person's personal belief system is for debating purposes. This would be the genetic fallacy.

"Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits."

It would also cross over to being a personal comment. A person's belief system/worldview certainly does affect one's position, but it has no relevance in debates.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[cnorman18]

Since the rest has been otherwise dealt with, I shall respond only to this:

I have to leave for a meeting and will address your lengthy reply later on today.

Be it noted that you have not addressed my "lengthy reply" at all.

Excellent. See if you can actually respond to my actual points and statements when you do, as opposed to distracting, deflecting, or distorting them and changing the subject --

In your opinion. I have more than supplied direct answers to your demands.

You have not. You have now, at long last, published at least something more than a mere hint or coy allusion to gay promiscuity -- by cutting and pasting some dubious "research" from the website of an organization that has a vested financial interest in maintaining the same mythology that you promote. Even there, you never posted a direct answer.

As for the rest -- on the subject of predation, of preying on straights and "recruiting" them into homosexuality -- you still refuse to answer at all. Further, there are any number of points I have made and questions I have asked in previous posts that you still avoid dealing with. One only has to read my posts to see them; no point in listing them again.

Your dodging and ducking and changing the subject are obvious -- aside from the issue that I trust you will not bring up again now.

Be well. If you ever feel like actually DEBATING, or DIRECTLY ANSWERING MY QUESTION, get back to me.[/QUOTE]

[99percentatheism]

Marriage defined:

Haven’t you read,� Jesus replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.�

- Jesus

Matthew 19

Jude, and the Church he was so concerned about, certainly had the same issues in his day that we are still facing today.

And he wrote so profoundly to the Church:

Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,

To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:

Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.

The Sin and Doom of Ungodly People

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.

For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you.

They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.

And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.

They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings.

But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!� Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them.

Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion.

These people are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves.

They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness,

and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.�These people are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.

A Call to Persevere

But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold.

They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.�

These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.

But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

Be merciful to those who doubt; save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.

To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

[KCKID]

Marriage defined:

Haven’t you read,� Jesus replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.�

- Jesus

Matthew 19

Jude, and the Church he was so concerned about, certainly had the same issues in his day that we are still facing today.

And he wrote so profoundly to the Church:

Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,

To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:

Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.

The Sin and Doom of Ungodly People

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.

For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you.

They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.

And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.

They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings.

But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!� Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them.

Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion.

These people are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves.

They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness,

and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.�These people are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.

A Call to Persevere

But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold.

They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.�

These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.

But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

Be merciful to those who doubt; save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.

To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

????

What does the above have to do with homosexuality or 'gay denomination'?

Answer: Nothing at all!

[99percentatheism]

Marriage defined:

Haven’t you read,� Jesus replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.�

- Jesus

Matthew 19

Jude, and the Church he was so concerned about, certainly had the same issues in his day that we are still facing today.

And he wrote so profoundly to the Church:

Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,

To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:

Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.

The Sin and Doom of Ungodly People

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.

For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you.

They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.

And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.

They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings.

But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!� Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them.

Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion.

These people are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves.

They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness,

and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.�These people are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.

A Call to Persevere

But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold.

They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.�

These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.

But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

Be merciful to those who doubt; save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.

To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

????

What does the above have to do with homosexuality or 'gay denomination'?

Answer: Nothing at all!

Homosexuality is certainly defined as immorality in the New Testament. In fact Paul, listing it as behavior that one stops doing once they become a Christian "Such WERE some of you,"

Of course if there are people that want to claim to be Christians and that refuse to believe that homosexual sex acts are inappropriate for Christians to engage in, that's their choice These people can start their own religious movements or denominations. That looks to have actually happened.

Certain denominations and spinoff quasi-bible based organizations have done just that. That is why the reference in the OP to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

There is not one positive word about homosexual sex and engaging in homosexuality ANYWHERE in the New Testament. In fact, as even people like you have pointed out, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. And, since Jesus knew the Torah fairly well it seems, same gender sex acts would continue to be defined as detestable or abomination still.

In context.

Ever notice that JW's and Mormons do not use secular political power to demand their views take authority over th Christian Church?

Inhospitality comes quickly to mind.

[KCKID]

The below is an article that I also posted on the "Sodom & Gomorrah" thread since it is applicable to that thread topic and also this one. Yes, it does appear to be from a 'gay' publication (LAMBDA) but this should have no bearing on the author's common sense approach to the topic. Oh, by the way, fair warning ...it's more than 50 words in length.

Marriage: Sacred? Says Who? Immutable: Hardly.
by Doug Dukeman

Once again, the U.S. debate surrounding marriage has made headlines. The 2004 Presidential candidates already are being asked questions about their support of same-gender marriages, civil unions, domestic partnership benefits and a number of other questions concerning LGBTIQ rights. The answers politicians give fall into three categories. Most Democrats give their support to ideas of civil unions and domestic partnership benefits, emphasizing that the decision should be left up to individual states. Most Republicans refuse all recognition of same-gender marriages. The third camp includes people like the Democratic Presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich and the Democratic Presidential candidate the Rev. Al Sharpton who support full marriage equality for same-gender couples. Besides Kucinich and Sharpton, almost all of the other politicians like to pontificate on the "sacred and immutable institution of marriage." But what exactly does this mean? Does such an institution exist? Looking at the history of the institution(s) of marriage, it doesn't seem that way.

First, the "sacredness" of marriage has no singular meaning. To some religious communities and the politicians in them, sacredness implies that marriage is an institution set apart for a specific purpose by God. It is not only a special relationship between a man and a woman but between the couple and God and thus a "sacred" institution. But many other people of faith see marriage as a relationship between a couple and between the couple and God no matter what the genders of the partners involved.

For others still, "sacred" has more to do with the fact that they see marriage as a building block for society. Marriage (between a man and a woman) is sacred because without it, these people contest, all of society would be thrust into chaos. "Authentic" family bonds would not exist, children would be brought up in inadequate homes, and "values" (whatever the individual defines these to mean) are not passed on from generation to generation. Some even claim that recognizing same-gender marriage will be the destruction of humanity's relationship with God. I find it hard to see how basing public policy on such an assertion could be sound or fruitful.

Second, the immutability, or unchanging nature, of marriage is cited often as one reason that allowing same-gender marriage is a morally disastrous idea. U.S. Senate Majority Leader and Republican Bill Frist even has proposed that marriage has remained unchanged for at least "3000 years." The claim of immutability taps into a common human desire for stability and constancy. The familiar comforts us -- and different-gender marriage is engrained deeply in the heterosexist fabric of our society.

But how sound are these claims of sacredness and immutability? Since individual states issue marriage licenses, should they base policy decisions on subjective notions of sacredness and the relation of an institution to God? Is marriage when facilitated by the State a secular institution? Furthermore, is the immutability thesis a defendable one? Is marriage today really the same institution it was 3000 years ago? Or more precisely, is different-gender marriage -- the "traditional" marriage between "one man and one woman" that we hear about all the time ? really what marriage has always been in the U.S. or in other nations not so heavily effected by Christianity? Where do these claims of sacredness and immutability come from?

Religious Studies scholars and historians might point out that claims of sacredness and immutability of marriage are rooted in a fundamentalist Christian theology. While other Near-Eastern religious traditions, notably Islam and Judaism, often get wrapped up in similar fundamentalist defenses of different-gender marriage, these religious traditions do not have nearly the influence in the U.S. as the dominant fundamentalist Christian ideology. Fundamentalism is connected to, but should be differentiated from, a "literal interpretation" of the Christian Bible. Fundamentalists might interpret their sacred texts "literally" (or at least claim to) but more frequently they base their judgments on the authority of their pastors (local, national and worldwide) and their pastors' guidance on marriage. Taught to them since birth, heteronormative notions, proposing heterosexuality as the only good and authentic sexuality and the "norm" for human beings, also play a large role in their resistance to same-gender marriage.

However, it is very difficult, maybe even impossible, to ever render a "literal" interpretation of the Christian Bible or any other religious text. Interpretations of texts are necessarily subjective. While it might well be argued that the probability of one meaning of a text to the society that wrote it is more likely than another, coming up with the sacred and immutable thesis about marriage after doing one's best to render a "literal" interpretation of the Christian Bible is near impossible. Where persons like Sen. Frist come up with 3000 years as the age of marriage is certainly beyond me and beyond all credible Religious Studies scholars. The best guess is that he simply took 2000 years (back to the advent of Christianity) and added 1000 years for good measure -- why not?

One could possibly do an exercise to illustrate what a "literal" rendering of the "Biblical notion" of marriage would look like. Perhaps marriage should consist solely of a union between one man and one or more women -- a notion illustrated (and seemingly advocated) by the author of Genesis 29:17-28 and II Samuel 3:2-5. Of course, this shouldn't impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives according to the authors of II Samuel 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3 and II Chronicles 11:21. Make sure though that your wife is a virgin before you marry her, because if you find out otherwise after the fact, it will be necessary to stone her to death if you follow Deuteronomy 22:13-21. Of course, marriage between a "believer and a non-believer" (whatever these terms mean) are forbidden in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. And what if a if a man dies and leaves his wife a widow? Then of course the brother of the deceased man must consummate a new marriage with her. If he does not wish to consummate a new marriage with the man's wife, she should take off his sandal and spit in his face (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). What do we do if the man wears no sandal? We are not told -- and it remains a mystery to this day. If the immutability of marriage is based on the Christian Bible, we get nowhere fast. Indeed, marriage throughout the text changes -- from polygamous to monogamous -- and from indissoluble to dissoluble and back again. What the Christian Scripture's "literal" message is that the intimate and sexual relationships between human beings have are diverse and mutable - changing always and everywhere.

When proponents of "traditional marriage" talk about it, they are appealing to the Biblical texts and history in an isogetic fashion; that is, they are "reading into" the texts what they want to see there. But more often than not, these same people are really basing their notions about marriage on the views of their respective pastors and churches. The main issue is about reliance on authority, a lack of critical thinking and revisionist history. These pastors and churches might base their belief in marriage in part on their isogetic reading of sacred texts but they also heavily rely on a carefully crafted theology about marriage that is based on revisionist history, primitive and heterosexist notions of sexuality and the comfort of reliance on the status quo. Heterosexuality is not the only sexuality and is certainly not a norm. Sexuality is diverse and wonderful, and relationships of love are established every day between persons of any and all genders. These relationships are no less "normal" than any other relationship. Appeals to their detrimental effects on society are founded on irrational homophobic assumptions about sexual minorities.

It is clear that marriage has undergone major changes throughout the centuries. Marriage 3000 years ago was primarily a commercial transaction ? a transfer of property from a woman's father to another man (her new husband). It remained this way in most places more or less until the end of the 19th century. Even today, this "property transfer" exists in some places and vestiges of it exist in our own U.S. marriage culture. Look at the "giving away" of a bride by her father, the tradition of the bride's father paying for the wedding (seemingly analogous to the dowry) and the taking of her husband's last name by a woman. All of these are signs of ownership of women. We have so diluted these signs today that we often don't even realize their origins. We must not let ourselves think that these traditions have no effect on us today. The commercial origin of marriage still affects the way men perceive women. In fact, until 1976 any woman could be legally raped by her husband in the U.S. It was her duty as his wife to provide sex, and he could initiate it whenever he wanted. North Carolina was the last state to outlaw marital rape, and it waited until 1993 to finally do so. It's a good thing the institution of marriage has changed over the years.

The institution of marriage has changed dramatically in this century, and it's not finished yet. The sacredness of marriage is beyond the scope of the government's judgment. The institution itself, when restricted solely to contracts between "one man and one woman," violates principles of equality and dignity, not to mention common sense notions about the normal healthy diversity of sexuality. Those who call marriage misogynistic and patriarchal are not delusional. Only relatively recently have women been gaining civil rights. As late as 1940, married women were not allowed to make legal contracts in 12 states - we no longer disallow this right. Or what about anti-miscegenation laws dictating the illegality of interracial relations and marriage? The U.S. Supreme Court put an end to bans on interracial relationships in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

Marriage today still contains remnants of patriarchy and misogyny. To keep it the same would do an injustice to women (and indeed all people) everywhere. Same-gender marriages would strengthen society by finally allowing the State to acknowledge the validity of diverse sexuality and the rights of consenting adults to make marital commitments.

When interracial marriage laws were struck down in 1967, there were protests then, just like there are protests now about same-gender marriage. There were politicians who blamed "activist judges." Many privileged white people felt that the battle for equal civil rights for African-Americans was not their battle. Privileges gives people this right -- the right not to think about discrimination, hatred, fear of death or injury and harassment. The same privilege allows many of my family, friends and colleagues to think that same-gender marriage is not a civil rights issue. Some of them even make speeches decrying "activist judges" in Massachusetts and elsewhere. These protests should not deter advocates for marriage equality. They are based on the same bigotry, homophobia, ignorance and even maliciousness that have oppressed women, people of color, the poor and LGBTIQ folk for centuries. I have hope though that the U.S. Supreme Court will one day intervene and declare laws banning same-gender marriage unconstitutional in a similar fashion. Am I an extremist? You bet. And indeed, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. so eloquently said, "The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?" I certainly know where I stand -- do you?

http://www.unc.edu/glbtsa/lambda/articl ... rriage.htm