Debating Christianity and Religion

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 3:03 pm**

Very simple.:The movement to homosexualize The Church, to celebrate and encourage people to engage in homosexuality, including the redefining of marriage even, has been going on for a few decades now. With of course the expected schism by those Christians that cannot be part of that.

So, simply, for those that support homosexuality, "gay pride," and those that define themselves by the sex act or desire for it (Gays, Lesbians, and Bi-Sexuals), produce the open and unambiguous scriptural support New Testament or Old Testament . . . for "Christians" to engage in, support and promote homosexuality.

Posted: **Sun Oct 05, 2014 7:45 am**

99percentatheism wrote: Very simple.:The movement to homosexualize The Church, to celebrate and encourage people to engage in homosexuality, including the redefining of marriage even, has been going on for a few decades now. With of course the expected schism by those Christians that cannot be part of that.

So, simply, for those that support homosexuality, "gay pride," and those that define themselves by the sex act or desire for it (Gays, Lesbians, and Bi-Sexuals), produce the open and unambiguous scriptural support New Testament or Old Testament . . . for "Christians" to engage in, support and promote homosexuality.

The silence of responses declares only one thing. Christians that oppose the homosexual agenda and the homosexualization of The Church are in the right. They are neither intolerant, mean, hateful or any other negative labeling hung as a sign of derision on them from the supporters and promoters of gay pride.

This is the thread that should put the matter to rest for homosexualists and their proponents, that demand that there is now . . . support for same gender sexual behavior to redefine centuries affirmed Christian truth . . . and to rewrite the New Testament into yet another aspect of the gay agenda to take over and replace the moral structure of Christian life as described by the Apostles, the Disciples, and Christ Jesus, as is written in the New Testament.

The challenge has been made and the inability of it to be refuted shows who is and who isn't right about it.

Here, let me help the opposition to Christian truth:

Let's start with the supposed Roman Pederast that had his young lover healed by Jesus? This is quite a common "support" reference used by gay activists trying to show acceptance of gay sex in Christian theology.

DOES the following show a glimpse that the gay community and its supporters DO in fact promote pederasty and/or a pederast relationship? It took less than a second to find examples of this when googled:

Would Jesus Discriminate? - Jesus affirmed a gay couple
www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical ... ouple.html
In the original language, the importance of this story for gay, lesbian, and bisexual ... But when speaking of the one he is asking Jesus to heal, he uses only pais.
When Jesus Healed a Same-Sex Partner | Jay Michaelson
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../when-jesus-healed-a-sa...
The Huffington Post
Aug 7, 2012 - Jesus praises the faith of the centurion, and the pais is healed. This tale illustrates the power and importance of faith, and how anyone can ...
The Gay Centurion Jesus met and blessed in Matthew 8 and ...
www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Centurion.html
Pais conveyed the idiomatic meaning of same sex lover. ... He is an utterly honest man and refuses to insult Jesus by asking for healing under false pretences.
The Biblical World: Did Jesus Heal a Centurion's Same-Sex ...
thebiblicalworld.blogspot.com/.../did-jesus-heal-centurions-same-sex.htm...
Aug 9, 2012 - As Jesus enters Capernaum a Roman Centurion asks Jesus to heal his ..... I think what's important here is that, IF 'pais' here does mean a gay ...
Healing the centurion's servant - Wikipedia, the free ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healing_the_centurion's_servant
Wikipedia
Healing the centurion's servant is one of the miracles of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. ... Elsewhere the term translated from the Greek as "servant" is pais, which can be translated in a ... Christians, Gays and Gay Christians.
When Jesus Healed A Gay Man - KnowledgeNuts
knowledgenuts.com/2013/10/14/when-jesus-healed-a-gay-man/
Oct 14, 2013 - When Jesus Healed A Gay Man ... different storyâ€”such as the moment in both Matthew and Luke when Jesus heals a Roman centurion's â€œpais.
Commentary on Matthew 8:5-13: Jesus and Homosexuality
www.matthewnederlanden.com/.../jesus-he ... atthew-8.p...
Marveling at the man's faith, Jesus pronounced the servant healed and Jesus ... The word that is used to describe the servant in Matthew is "pais" (mostly because it ... an endearing term for the junior partner in a homosexual relationship ...
Gay centurion: Jesus heals a soldier's boyfriend in the Bible
jesusinlove.blogspot.com/2012/.../gay-centurion-jesus-heals-soldiers.htm...
Mar 15, 2012 - Both Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 tell how a centurion asked Jesus to heal the young man referred to in Greek as his â€œpais.â€� The word was ...
Hip and Thigh: The Centurion's Servant
hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2007/02/centurions-servant.html
Feb 22, 2007 - But, are we to conclude the use of pais means a homosexual partner is .... Anyone who reads this story as Jesus healing the gay lover of a ...
Jesus, clobber-texts, and the centurion's 'companion'
www.patheos.com/.../jesus-clobber-texts ... urions-com...
Patheos
May 2, 2014 - â€œBut only speak the word, and let my pais be healed.â€� ... that might perturb the sensibilities of even the most anti-gay modern clobber-texter.

- https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... %22pais%22

The next one could be a mother in law and her daughter as gay activists use Ruth and Naomi as a lesbian couple committing themselves in a kind of marriage ceremony. google that and see.

In all of the attempts to dismantle the so-called "clobber passages" by gay activists, none have produced ANY pro gay statements from the same Bible they are studying for the promotion of the gay agenda. None.

Posted: **Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:18 am**

[color=brown]99percentatheism[/color] wrote: The silence of responses declares only one thing. Christians that oppose the homosexual agenda and the homosexualization of The Church are in the right. They are neither intolerant, mean, hateful or any other negative labeling hung as a sign of derision on them from the supporters and promoters of gay pride.

Have you considered that (Biblical-literalist) Christianity itself may be intolerant, bigoted, etc.? Why should anyone trust a 1,900+-year-old collection of anonymous documents as a moral guide? Maybe people should use their hearts and minds to determine what is acceptable instead of some ancient "holy" text.

Posted: **Sun Oct 05, 2014 8:12 pm**

Haven

[color=brown]99percentatheism[/color] wrote: The silence of responses declares only one thing. Christians that oppose the homosexual agenda and the homosexualization of The Church are in the right. They are neither intolerant, mean, hateful or any other negative labeling hung as a sign of derision on them from the supporters and promoters of gay pride.

Have you considered that (Biblical-literalist) Christianity itself may be intolerant, bigoted, etc.? Why should anyone trust a 1,900+-year-old collection of anonymous documents as a moral guide? Maybe people should use their hearts and minds to determine what is acceptable instead of some ancient "holy" text.

Humans engaging in same gender sex acts predates Christianity. Greece, for example, was many centuries before the first Christians were called by that label.

Your post notes that there aren't any scriptures that supports the gay agenda being plied in The Church. Nor does it support the homosexualization of Christian life. This is an important truth for Christians to realize as people like Matthew Vines and orgs like Soulforce set their sites on attacking Biblical truth and forming a new agenda of forcing their gay desires, behaviors and gay activism on The Church.

Since there is no support for the homosexualization of Christians anywhere in or from the Bible, why would any Christian embrace an anything goes morality of allowing personal desires to form a new religion to rule over The Church? That seems the height of intolerance.

It must always be pointed out that the Christians that oppose the homosexualization of The Church, are in the right. They are contending for and keeping the faith.

Posted: **Sun Oct 05, 2014 8:47 pm**

99percentatheism wrote: Haven
[color=brown]99percentatheism[/color] wrote: The silence of responses declares only one thing. Christians that oppose the homosexual agenda and the homosexualization of The Church are in the right. They are neither intolerant, mean, hateful or any other negative labeling hung as a sign of derision on them from the supporters and promoters of gay pride.

Have you considered that (Biblical-literalist) Christianity itself may be intolerant, bigoted, etc.? Why should anyone trust a 1,900+-year-old collection of anonymous documents as a moral guide? Maybe people should use their hearts and minds to determine what is acceptable instead of some ancient "holy" text.
Humans engaging in same gender sex acts predates Christianity. Greece, for example, was many centuries before the first Christians were called by that label.

Your post notes that there aren't any scriptures that supports the gay agenda being plied in The Church. Nor does it support the homosexualization of Christian life. This is an important truth for Christians to realize as people like Matthew Vines and orgs like Soulforce set their sites on attacking Biblical truth and forming a new agenda of forcing their gay desires, behaviors and gay activism on The Church.

Since there is no support for the homosexualization of Christians anywhere in or from the Bible, why would any Christian embrace an anything goes morality of allowing personal desires to form a new religion to rule over The Church? That seems the height of intolerance.

It must always be pointed out that the Christians that oppose the homosexualization of The Church, are in the right. They are contending for and keeping the faith.

The alleged 'silence' means nothing. In fact you are demonstrably wrong, as has been pointed out to you many times. Christian churches are not silent at all, but accept their LGBT brethren.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affir ... ominations

Yours is an increasingly outlier position. Many Christians and Christian denominations specifically the LGBT community into their churches because they recognize the temporal restrictions on the 1st Century church and understand the fact that sexual orientation is not a choice. The rejection of gays by some who call themselves 'Christian' runs exactly opposite to the general principles of Christianity that Jesus taught. To hold on to these prejudices shows ignorance or denial of facts demonstrated in this article: http://www.salon.com/2012/01/22/the_inv ... erosexual/

Posted: **Sun Oct 05, 2014 9:13 pm**

99percentatheism wrote: The challenge has been made and the inability of it to be refuted shows who is and who isn't right about it.

I'm neither gay, nor do I believe in Hebrew mythology. What I do support is human rights.

I personally wouldn't even try to make a case that the Biblical dogma isn't filled with hatred and bigotry. I'm sure it is. After all, the Bible also makes a case for the social oppression of women as second-class citizens who aren't even permitted to speak in public on matters of religion. Something that Christian women do all the time today.

The Bible also makes a case for slavery, and that it's considered to be "moral" in this religion to beat your slave to within an inch of their life as long as you don't kill them.

The Bible also condones and even places a price on women and slaves as chattel.

99percentatheism wrote: Here, let me help the opposition to Christian truth:

Christian truth?

What in the world is that?

Do you condone selling your daughter to her rapist for 30 shekels of silver?

That's "Christian Truth".

Deuteronomy 22:
[28] If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
[29] Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Obviously your daughter doesn't even get any say in the matter. This is just between you and your daughter's rapist. And if you are TRUE to your God's Word you would gladly take the 30 shekels of silver and hand your daughter over to the rapist.

IMHO, anytime the Bible is used as fodder for hatred and bigotry it can only backfire.

There is no "Christian Truth". What exists is Christian hypocrisy and denial of many of the immoral demands of these ancient Jealous-God myths.

Unless you are prepared to sell your virgin daughter to me for 30 shekels of silver after I rape her then don't even talk to me about "Christian Truth".

I can't believe that you would hold this ancient Bible up as being a book of morality. Clearly you are going to pick and chose what you would personally like to be bigoted against.

It's an ancient collection of immoralities.

You chose to use it to belittle and degrade homosexuality. But would you sell your daughter to a rapist? Do you condone slavery? Do you condone beating slaves? Do you support that women should keep their mouths shut in church and in public on matters of religion or political importance?

Unless you are prepared to support and stand behind all of the hateful bigotries of the Bible why use it as fodder for hatred against gays?

I personally don't see any merit in your position at all.

Posted: **Sun Oct 05, 2014 9:57 pm**

Divine Insight wrote:
The Bible also condones and even places a price on women and slaves as chattel.

99percentatheism wrote: Here, let me help the opposition to Christian truth:
Christian truth?

What in the world is that?

Do you condone selling your daughter to her rapist for 30 shekels of silver?

That's "Christian Truth".

Deuteronomy 22:
[28] If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
[29] Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Obviously your daughter doesn't even get any say in the matter. This is just between you and your daughter's rapist. And if you are TRUE to your God's Word you would gladly take the 30 shekels of silver and hand your daughter over to the rapist.
....
Unless you are prepared to sell your virgin daughter to me for 30 shekels of silver after I rape her then don't even talk to me about "Christian Truth".

I can't believe that you would hold this ancient Bible up as being a book of morality. Clearly you are going to pick and chose what you would personally like to be bigoted against.

This is an excellent example of why it so dangerous and inappropriate to try to take these ancient quotes and apply them to cultures that are drastically different in both time and cultural context.

The text of Deuteronomy 22 made sense in a culture where women were helpless chattel who, having been 'deflowered' by a rapist, were devalued and rendered helpless, worthless, and incapable of surviving since they would be considered unworthy of marriage in that culture.

To apply that logic today is absurd in the extreme. This is exactly the same error that 99 and others make when they try to transplant ancient fears of homosexuality into a contemporary culture that understands sexuality is not a choice, exists on a continuum, and has nothing necessarily to do with promiscuity and sexual licentiousness. To persist in such claims is to announce one is ignorant of pertinent and relevant facts and wishes to remain so.

Posted: **Sun Oct 05, 2014 10:22 pm**

[color=violet]99percentatheism[/color] wrote: Your post notes that there aren't any scriptures that supports the gay agenda being plied in The Church. Nor does it support the homosexualization of Christian life. This is an important truth for Christians to realize as people like Matthew Vines and orgs like Soulforce set their sites on attacking Biblical truth and forming a new agenda of forcing their gay desires, behaviors and gay activism on The Church.

"Homosexualization?" A propagandistic neologism if I've ever seen one.

No one is trying to "homosexualize" Christians; no one is trying to turn anyone gay. What people who support human rights want is for LGBT people to be treated equally in all areas of life, including churches, and to have equal rights under the law.

[color=fuchsia]99[/color] wrote:Since there is no support for the homosexualization of Christians anywhere in or from the Bible, why would any Christian embrace an anything goes morality of allowing personal desires to form a new religion to rule over The Church? That seems the height of intolerance.

The Bible is marginally heterosexist: Leviticus 18 and 20, along with Romans 1, could be interpreted as condemning some kinds of same-sex relationships, and, except for a few instances (Naomi and Ruth, David and Jonathan, etc.), the Bible doesn't explicitly mention same-sex relationships. So what? The Bible also condones slavery, rape, polygamy, and sex trafficking (read Deuteronomy 22, Numbers 31, and any Bible verse mentioning concubines).

Who cares what the Bible says? Christian morality needs to evolve beyond the Bible if it has any hope of being accepted in society or respecting human rights.

Posted: **Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:56 pm**

Alright, let me paint you a picture. Timothy has been given the task of fixing the church in Ephesus but there's a problem... itâ€™s full of people concerned so much with bickering about religious dogma that they have forgotten about what it truly means to follow Christ. A congregation desperately trying to figure out through careful analysis how one is a Christian. What they are doing is squabbling over meaningless dogmatic principles that has nothing to do with the message of Christ. They are a church obsessed with religion but want nothing to do with God, or as T.H. white put it when describing a character named Guinevere â€œShe became a wonderful theologian, but cared nothing about God.â€�

So Timothy is sent to clean up this mess of a religion emerging in Ephesus and as we witness in 1 Timothy people are not using sound words and as we see through careful reading of Paul's writing, the sound words being chosen are based on wisdom or in latin sapientia. This is a kind of wisdom that can only come from the heart and be lived out personally in relationships. Not through the godless chatter of scientia or information used impersonally and stored within our minds.

And what does Timothy do, enter into a big lecture about how stupid all this â€˜godless-chatterâ€™ is... pointing out specific religious practices, eventually making a point that sounds eerily similar to this debate exclaiming

1 Timothy 4:1-5 [NRSV]
â€œNow the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will renounce the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared with a hot iron. They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, provided it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by Godâ€™s word and by prayerâ€�

Heâ€™s essentially saying â€œWhat are you guys doing with-holding this magnificent gift of God, that is marriage, from people? Thatâ€™s not how you build the relational community of Christ... Stop it! Let those peeps over there get married!â€�

Whether or not it is sanctified anywhere else in the bible... I think Timothy makes it pretty clear that all this arguing instead of fostering loving communities that everyone can be a part of ainâ€™t the way to go.

Posted: **Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:58 pm**

99percentatheism wrote: Haven
[color=brown]99percentatheism[/color] wrote: The silence of responses declares only one thing. Christians that oppose the homosexual agenda and the homosexualization of The Church are in the right. They are neither intolerant, mean, hateful or any other negative labeling hung as a sign of derision on them from the supporters and promoters of gay pride.

Have you considered that (Biblical-literalist) Christianity itself may be intolerant, bigoted, etc.? Why should anyone trust a 1,900+-year-old collection of anonymous documents as a moral guide? Maybe people should use their hearts and minds to determine what is acceptable instead of some ancient "holy" text.

99percentatheism wrote:Humans engaging in same gender sex acts predates Christianity. Greece, for example, was many centuries before the first Christians were called by that label.
So, were these non-Christian people committing 'a sin'? Were these people bound under the penalty of death by 'the rules' of a God in which they did not believe?

99percentatheism wrote:Your post notes that there aren't any scriptures that supports the gay agenda being plied in The Church. Nor does it support the homosexualization of Christian life.
The Bible, as far as I can tell, does not support a whole lot of things that 'the Church' finds acceptable today. For instance, how do you think Jesus would feel about the glaring commercialism of 'the Church' and its 'prosperity message' that is poles apart from the teaching of Jesus Christ? And then, of course, there's the acceptance by 'the Church' of divorce and remarriage ...a definite scriptural no-no! Would Jesus be okay with divorce and remarriage? Or, would Jesus instead turn a blind eye to all of the hypocrisy and the double standards as plied by 'the Church' and rather target 'the homosexualization' of Christian life? It seems to me as though you've got all your priorities backwards, 99percent.

99percentatheism wrote:This is an important truth for Christians to realize as people like Matthew Vines and orgs like Soulforce set their sites on attacking Biblical truth and forming a new agenda of forcing their gay desires, behaviors and gay activism on The Church.
You like the word 'attack', don't you, 99percent? Disagreeing with you and demonstrating that ambiguous scriptures can be interpreted in other than YOUR way should not be construed as 'an attack'. Here's what I think. I think that YOU like to believe that a battle instigated by homosexual people toward 'the Church' is going on. Moreover, I think you enjoy 'the battle' as this appears to have given you the opportunity to set yourself up as a 'caped crusader' of sorts.

99percentatheism wrote:Since there is no support for the homosexualization of Christians anywhere in or from the Bible, why would any Christian embrace an anything goes morality of allowing personal desires to form a new religion to rule over The Church? That seems the height of intolerance.
I repeat what I said earlier. The Bible, as far as I can tell, does not support a whole lot of things that 'the Church' finds acceptable today. For instance, how do you think Jesus would feel about the glaring commercialism of 'the Church' and its 'prosperity message' that is poles apart from the teaching of Jesus Christ? And then, of course, there's the acceptance by 'the Church' of divorce and remarriage ...a definite scriptural no-no! Would Jesus be okay with divorce and remarriage? Or, would Jesus instead turn a blind eye to all of the hypocrisy and the double standards as plied by 'the Church' and rather target 'the homosexualization' of Christian life? It seems to me as though you've got all your priorities backwards, 99percent.

99percentatheism wrote:It must always be pointed out that the Christians that oppose the homosexualization of The Church, are in the right. They are contending for and keeping the faith.
I must confess, I don't know what 'the homosexualization of the Church' even means. Would you say that the increasing number of 'Gay Affirming Churches' have been 'homosexualized?' Or, could it be that the tenets of such Churches is more in keeping with the Gospel message of Jesus?

I would opt for the latter explanation.

Debating Christianity and Religion

Produce "Pro gay (or LGBT)" scripture

Produce "Pro gay (or LGBT)" scripture

Re: Produce "Pro gay (or LGBT)" scripture

Re: Produce "Pro gay (or LGBT)" scripture

Re: Produce "Pro gay (or LGBT)" scripture

Re: Produce "Pro gay (or LGBT)" scripture

Re: Produce "Pro gay (or LGBT)" scripture

Re: Produce "Pro gay (or LGBT)" scripture

Re: Produce "Pro gay (or LGBT)" scripture

Re: Produce "Pro gay (or LGBT)" scripture