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?

[JohnPaul]

JoeyKnothead wrote:

I'm ashamed to know your OP has been allowed to stay in the hallowed halls of C&A this long

.
Its called "comic relief."

Wikipedia

Comic relief is the inclusion of a humorous character, scene or witty dialogue in an otherwise serious work, often to relieve tension.

[99percentatheism]

Where to answer to such a personal attack?



JoeyKnothead

This is a thread where we are discussing the antithetical nature of same gener marriage and same gender sex acts as they are compared to orthodox, biblical truth...

While ignoring the fact you can't show a god gives an nth a hoot about how humans go about being human.

Attempting to preach another Gospel is definately something that Jesus and the rest of the boys warned us to watch out for.

The Gospel of anything goes, and tht anything goes Gospel being championed by the world and its ways, proves how well they warned us. Here it is. As Chick-fil-A clearly demonstrated.

You want a theological argument, where you are completely and utterly incapable of doing anything but pointing at the Bible and declaring it supports bias against some of your fellow humans simply 'cause you or your not-shown-to-care god have sexual hangups.

Um, a "theological argument" based on secular humanism is an oxymoron right? Soooo, the argument, if a Christian one, which the gay issue is immutably so per the reactions of the usual suspects to Dan Cathy proves beyond a shadow of a doubt . . . would be a theological argument based on the Bible.

Common sense or a highly academic one.

I'd rather burn in Hell for all eternity watching the hot lesbians go at each other, and climbing in there when they let me, and God love 'em when they do, than spend one minute in Heaven with anyone who professes bias against otherwise decent human beings.

Ohhhkay.

Your Heaven is Hell to those who seek freedom for folks to live as they please, to build families they love, and to enjoy the rights and privileges being human should allow.

The OP provides all of that.

You and that God you're so proud of represent everything repugnant about folks judging others simply 'cause you can't accept who they love, and how they go about expressin' it.

So tolerance and diversity are just smoke and mirrors? And when we hear it, it really means the camels nose under the tent? Chick-fil-A proving yet again the ulterior motives of that crowd.

And don't give me that song and dance about "hate the sin, love the sinner".

Why would I waste my time? All you need is a good vacuum cleaner for the dust.

Where you seek to declare a god supports your biases, while you are entirely incapable of showing such is the truth, you deserve the death your god proposes for the homosexuals it is obvious that it is merely you who finds so objectionable.

WuhwuhwuhwuhWAIT a sec. You utterly reject referencing the Bible and then want me to refernce the Bible?

Now, that's a theological argument there, of which you seem quite proud, it's just that it's in the Bible of JoeyKnothead.

Um, er, uh, OK.

But yeah, have you one of them dried out chicken sandwiches and pride yourself for doing "God's" work.

Validating of course, how and why I used Chick-fil-A to prove reality of this issue.

Thank you.

Work your God has been unable to do, except to have you carry on like homosexuals are such a scourge they shouldn't be allowed to set foot in a building. A building you frequent where you and those of your ilk pat each other on the back and pride yourself in the ignorance of the ancients.

I ate at Chick-fil-A on Wednesday and Friday.

"Cuz I believe in tolerating diversity. I didn't see the need to act out my sexuality in front of the employees thuugh.

You wanna point at your book and say "See, homosexuals are bad, mmmkay!"

If that caricature of my positions make you feel self-righteous, then have at it. I'm used to this comeback tactic.

All the while ignoring the FACT that you're incapable of showing this God exists, and incapable of showing you know the opinions of this God.

First, God exists unless you can prove that nothing creates anything. And, even if this CREATOR isn't the God of the Bible (which it is), the way in which I have presented the words of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, is accurate, ethical and trustworthy. You cannot prove me wrong in either case. Unless your calculator can show a sum after 0 times the known and unseen universe. A Universe made up of real stuff.

But yeah, you keep beating that Bible. You keep beating folks over the head with that Bible. You keep professing bias against your fellow humans with that Bible.

All my positions claim is tolerance and diversity be implemented the way the tolerance and diversity crowd demands it to be so.

Throw your lot in with the ancients, as it is apparent your thinking on this issue can't be supported by 21st Century knowledge - knowledge that homosexuals exist, they're worthy of love, and just 'cause we love 'em doesn't mean we're "gay" for 'em.

I am writing in the 21st Century. So, my positions are supported by 21st Century knowledge. I have no spriit medium to conjure up dead people that used to be into gay sex. By the way, there are rules in the Bibke that prohibit me from doing that too. And 21st Cenrury-wise, both you and I know that is a waste of time and money. Why pay for a scam huh?

You DARE post this OP in C&A, and then have the gall to declare for others how they should approach your bias?

It's called debate.

That's how it works. One person takes one side and the other person takes the other side.

This isn't a hippy commune site.

I find such is typical among the most radically fundamentalist of fundamentalist radicals.

Like Jesus called Christ. And of course God at the begiining of mankind's history with Him?

I stand in a long line of Fundies then. Going all the way back to the garden.

I'm digging it Joe. OK Thanks.

You will broker no argument that exposes your bias as just that. You'll broker no argument that tells you you're wrong, unless someone is able to point at some ancient, unproven, unprovable claims and say, "See, God is, after all, a loving god".

But your book doesn't claim that, does it? No! Your book claims that by God them folks is disgusting, so you have it in your "God-given" right to be just as spiteful, just as mean as you think your God wants you to be.

Gay history is outside of the Bible too Joe. How come soooooooo many civilizations, cultures and people found it (and find it still) unacceptable? In ancient Greece, the recipient of gay sex was denied being able to become a Greek citizen. Long before Christians were persecuted by Romans under Nero. A man (Nero) that married another man (Sporos).

Your OP, and your insistence that this argument remain solidly grounded in Theology, Doctrine & Dogma is a scandal upon this section of the site.

"Christianity and Apologetics"??????

Um, that sounds like the ONLY place it should be debated. You do know how apologetics works? It's not about an apology like: "Dude, I'm so sorry," it is "apologia." Defending a position.

That you've been able to have this disgusting display of "it's in the Bible, so my bias is justified" remain here in C&A is a condition I can't comprehend.

I've referenced gay goings-on, historical works, and current events. Hardly just the Bible.

You, your God, and your holy book sickens me.

Tums? Pepto? I'd like you to get better.

Your attempt to have a theological discussion in the confines of C&A sickens me.

Apolgetics.

Hello?

Everything about your disgusting, unmoving position regarding how you think homosexuals should be treated is vile and putrid.

Is it too late for me to report this personal attack? But I've gotten worse from people like you in places like this.

I'm ashamed to know your OP has been allowed to stay in the hallowed halls of C&A this long.

Because any honest treatment of this subject is appropriate for this area.

Tel me, why is the OP so bad?

It gives every single demand of the gay community.

[99percentatheism]

JoeyKnothead wrote:

I'm ashamed to know your OP has been allowed to stay in the hallowed halls of C&A this long

.
Its called "comic relief."

Wikipedia

Comic relief is the inclusion of a humorous character, scene or witty dialogue in an otherwise serious work, often to relieve tension.

At least some of it is could easily be reported as a personal attack from the rules here.

If that is your idea of comedy, whoa.

The OP provides for every single demand of the gay issue.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 1154:

Where to answer to such a personal attack?

I apologize for and retract any part of my referenced post that is pereceived as a personal attack. It was not my intention to attack you personally, but to attack your ideology. Having re-read my post, I would much prefer to replace personal references with more generic terms. Unfortunately, the nature of my speech, and thus my writing, is that I say "you", as it references your notions, instead of "this thinking here that you have on display".

Attempting to preach another Gospel is definately something that Jesus and the rest of the boys warned us to watch out for.

Theology.

The Gospel of anything goes, and tht anything goes Gospel being championed by the world and its ways, proves how well they warned us. Here it is. As Chick-fil-A clearly demonstrated.

Theology.

Um, a "theological argument" based on secular humanism is an oxymoron right? Soooo, the argument, if a Christian one, which the gay issue is immutably so per the reactions of the usual suspects to Dan Cathy proves beyond a shadow of a doubt . . . would be a theological argument based on the Bible.

Actually, you seem to reject arguments based on secular humanism specifically because they are not "biblical".

Theology.

Common sense or a highly academic one.

I've not seen much common sense on display, nor highly academic.

What I've seen is your continued insistence that this discussion remain clearly in the realm of...

Theology.

>snip<

Your Heaven is Hell to those who seek freedom for folks to live as they please, to build families they love, and to enjoy the rights and privileges being human should allow.

The OP provides all of that.

Yeah, by asking all who disagree with you to find something else to call themselves, showing that you'll broker no argument that impacts your...

Theology.

So tolerance and diversity are just smoke and mirrors?
...

When one hides behind a god they can't show exists, they use smoke and mirrors to hide their own biases.

And don't give me that song and dance about "hate the sin, love the sinner".

Why would I waste my time? All you need is a good vacuum cleaner for the dust.

Dust doesn't hafta be a bad thing. It can be used to light a fire that warms more'n the person striking the match.

Where you seek to declare a god supports your biases, while you are entirely incapable of showing such is the truth, you deserve the death your god proposes for the homosexuals it is obvious that it is merely you who finds so objectionable.

WuhwuhwuhwuhWAIT a sec. You utterly reject referencing the Bible and then want me to refernce the Bible?

I want you to reference something other'n the Bible in support of your assertion that god you're so proud of has an opinion on the doings of humans.

Now, that's a theological argument there, of which you seem quite proud, it's just that it's in the Bible of JoeyKnothead.

Um, er, uh, OK.

And now we see the problem with referring to a god one can't show exists in order to support our contentions.

But yeah, have you one of them dried out chicken sandwiches and pride yourself for doing "God's" work.

Validating of course, how and why I used Chick-fil-A to prove reality of this issue.

Thank you.

The reality of this issue is that you seek to present the Bible as supporting your biases.

I ate at Chick-fil-A on Wednesday and Friday.

"Cuz I believe in tolerating diversity. I didn't see the need to act out my sexuality in front of the employees thuugh.

It both amuses and saddens me to know that one would rather clog their arteries than accept some of their fellow human beings.

You wanna point at your book and say "See, homosexuals are bad, mmmkay!"

If that caricature of my positions make you feel self-righteous, then have at it. I'm used to this comeback tactic.

Do you deny that you've pointed to the Bible in order to support your contention that homosexuals are to be rejected by "Christians"?

All the while ignoring the FACT that you're incapable of showing this God exists, and incapable of showing you know the opinions of this God.

First, God exists unless you can prove that nothing creates anything.

Please link to and quote verbatim where I've made such an assertion. I'm not bound to support claims I've not made.

I stand by my assertion - you are utterly and completely incapable of showing your favored god exists, and you're utterly and completely incapable of showing you know the opinions of your favored god.

And, even if this CREATOR isn't the God of the Bible (which it is)

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

1st challenge.

the way in which I have presented the words of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, is accurate, ethical and trustworthy.

Theology.

You cannot prove me wrong in either case.

I'm not obligated to prove you wrong. You are obligated to support your claims.

Unless your calculator can show a sum after 0 times the known and unseen universe.

Do you contend that the existence of blind folks has caused the universe to no longer exist?

A Universe made up of real stuff.

What's your god made of?

All my positions claim is tolerance and diversity be implemented the way the tolerance and diversity crowd demands it to be so.

"Except for y'all over there, y'all gotta call yourselves something different than the word I seek to reserve for my sole, exclusive use!"

I am writing in the 21st Century.

That doesn't contain your notions to it.

So, my positions are supported by 21st Century knowledge. I have no spriit medium to conjure up dead people that used to be into gay sex. By the way, there are rules in the Bible...

Theology.

that prohibit me from doing that too. And 21st Cenrury-wise, both you and I know that is a waste of time and money. Why pay for a scam huh?

Indeed. Why pay in the oppression of others for the scam of self-righteous religious zealots?

You DARE post this OP in C&A, and then have the gall to declare for others how they should approach your bias?

It's called debate.

That's how it works. One person takes one side and the other person takes the other side.

This isn't a hippy commune site.

When you demand that folks reference the Bible in their arguments, you engage in...

Theology.

Like Jesus called Christ. And of course God at the begiining of mankind's history with Him?

I challenge you to show this God was at the beginning of mankind's history.

1st challenge.

I stand in a long line of Fundies then. Going all the way back to the garden.

What garden?

Gay history is outside of the Bible too Joe. How come soooooooo many civilizations, cultures and people found it (and find it still) unacceptable?

Doesn't matter.

I challenge you to show your god ain't happy with it.

1st challenge.

In ancient Greece, the recipient of gay sex was denied being able to become a Greek citizen. Long before Christians were persecuted by Romans under Nero. A man (Nero) that married another man (Sporos).

None of this indicates a god is unhappy with the sexual proclivities of humans.

"Christianity and Apologetics"??????

Um, that sounds like the ONLY place it should be debated. You do know how apologetics works? It's not about an apology like: "Dude, I'm so sorry," it is "apologia." Defending a position.

So defend your position...

Show your god ain't happy with homosexual behavior.

1st challenge in that phrasing, but it might be the 2nd'n on the gist there.

I've referenced gay goings-on, historical works, and current events. Hardly just the Bible.

While demanding this is a theological discussion.

You have repeatedly demanded folks reference the Bible to argue their positions.

Theology.

Tums? Pepto? I'd like you to get better.

I'll get better when you quit hiding behind a god you can't show exists in order to promote your biases.

Your attempt to have a theological discussion in the confines of C&A sickens me.

Apolgetics.

Hello?

It's just a shame you ain't apologetic about hiding behind a god you can't show exists in order to promote your biases.

Everything about your disgusting, unmoving position regarding how you think homosexuals should be treated is vile and putrid.

Is it too late for me to report this personal attack? But I've gotten worse from people like you in places like this.

That's an attack on your position, not you personally.

I'm ashamed to know your OP has been allowed to stay in the hallowed halls of C&A this long.

Because any honest treatment of this subject is appropriate for this area.

Then show you're honest when you declare you know a god's opinion.

1st challenge.

Tel me, why is the OP so bad?

'Cause it points to the Bible and says, "Look at me, I'm getting after these folks, and y'all oughta too!"

While being oblivious to the fact that you, nor that book, can show you speak for gods.

It gives every single demand of the gay community.

I'd dare sat the demand of the gay community is to be left alone.

[Richard81]

I find it hard to believe this same sex marriage thing is even an issue. They are still humans. Here in america everyone has the right to live their life however they want to, so long as it does not conflict others rights. This is the reason their is a separation between church and government. It does not matter what a 2,000 year old book says, this is the 21st century, not the dark ages!

[99percentatheism]

JoeyKnothead
From Post 1154:

Where to answer to such a personal attack?

I apologize for and retract any part of my referenced post that is pereceived as a personal attack. It was not my intention to attack you personally, but to attack your ideology. Having re-read my post, I would much prefer to replace personal references with more generic terms. Unfortunately, the nature of my speech, and thus my writing, is that I say "you", as it references your notions, instead of "this thinking here that you have on display".

OK

Attempting to preach another Gospel is definately something that Jesus and the rest of the boys warned us to watch out for.

Theology.

a·pol·o·get·ics (-pl-jtks)

n. (used with a sing. verb)
1. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.

2. Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.

The Gospel of anything goes, and tht anything goes Gospel being championed by the world and its ways, proves how well they warned us. Here it is. As Chick-fil-A clearly demonstrated.

Theology.

a·pol·o·get·ics (-pl-jtks)

n. (used with a sing. verb)
1. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.

2. Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.

Um, a "theological argument" based on secular humanism is an oxymoron right? Soooo, the argument, if a Christian one, which the gay issue is immutably so per the reactions of the usual suspects to Dan Cathy proves beyond a shadow of a doubt . . . would be a theological argument based on the Bible.

Actually, you seem to reject arguments based on secular humanism specifically because they are not "biblical".

Theology.

a·pol·o·get·ics (-pl-jtks)

n. (used with a sing. verb)
1. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.
2. Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.

Common sense or a highly academic one.

I've not seen much common sense on display, nor highly academic.

What I've seen is your continued insistence that this discussion remain clearly in the realm of...

Theology.

Gee ya think?

a·pol·o·get·ics (-pl-jtks)

n. (used with a sing. verb)
1. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.
2. Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.
>snip<

Your Heaven is Hell to those who seek freedom for folks to live as they please, to build families they love, and to enjoy the rights and privileges being human should allow.

The OP provides all of that.

Yeah, by asking all who disagree with you to find something else to call themselves, showing that you'll broker no argument that impacts your...

Theology.

a·pol·o·get·ics (-pl-jtks)

n. (used with a sing. verb)
1. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.
2. Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.

So tolerance and diversity are just smoke and mirrors?

...

That is my assertion about the other team's position demanding it.

When one hides behind a god they can't show exists, they use smoke and mirrors to hide their own biases.

God exists or we don't. We would still be nothing, as nothing can't create anything. Per science.

And don't give me that song and dance about "hate the sin, love the sinner".

Why would I waste my time? All you need is a good vacuum cleaner for the dust.

Dust doesn't hafta be a bad thing. It can be used to light a fire that warms more'n the person striking the match.

The gift of the Gospel just keeps on giving. Even to those that reject it. OK. Thanks Joe for pointing that out.

Where you seek to declare a god supports your biases, while you are entirely incapable of showing such is the truth, you deserve the death your god proposes for the homosexuals it is obvious that it is merely you who finds so objectionable.

WuhwuhwuhwuhWAIT a sec. You utterly reject referencing the Bible and then want me to refernce the Bible?

I want you to reference something other'n the Bible in support of your assertion that god you're so proud of has an opinion on the doings of humans.

Anatomy.

In your physical world created from nothing, anatomy decries homosexuality. Sperm in rectum, vulva to vulva. Decry in absolute evolutionary terms.

Two references or more not from "The Bible." yet all agreeing with it immutably so.

Now, that's a theological argument there, of which you seem quite proud, it's just that it's in the Bible of JoeyKnothead.

Um, er, uh, OK.

And now we see the problem with referring to a god one can't show exists in order to support our contentions.

Sperm in rectum and two females mating, destroys your positions totally. Now, all you have to rely on is defiance of reality.

My Bible is still closed.

But yeah, have you one of them dried out chicken sandwiches and pride yourself for doing "God's" work.

Validating of course, how and why I used Chick-fil-A to prove reality of this issue.

Thank you.

The reality of this issue is that you seek to present the Bible as supporting your biases.

Ultra dodge Joe. Epic fail.

I ate at Chick-fil-A on Wednesday and Friday.

"Cuz I believe in tolerating diversity. I didn't see the need to act out my sexuality in front of the employees thuugh.

It both amuses and saddens me to know that one would rather clog their arteries than accept some of their fellow human beings.

On Friday I sat side by side with the kissin' LGBT's and ate my chicken strips and wafle fries. Just like I did with the more polite and considerate Christians and others on Wednesday.

You wanna point at your book and say "See, homosexuals are bad, mmmkay!"

If that caricature of my positions make you feel self-righteous, then have at it. I'm used to this comeback tactic.

Do you deny that you've pointed to the Bible in order to support your contention that homosexuals are to be rejected by "Christians"?

I used gay sites too.

All the while ignoring the FACT that you're incapable of showing this God exists, and incapable of showing you know the opinions of this God.

First, God exists unless you can prove that nothing creates anything.

Please link to and quote verbatim where I've made such an assertion. I'm not bound to support claims I've not made.

I stand by my assertion - you are utterly and completely incapable of showing your favored god exists, and you're utterly and completely incapable of showing you know the opinions of your favored god.

I've answered your badgering. No need to go round and round.

And, even if this CREATOR isn't the God of the Bible (which it is)

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

1st challenge.

Ho hum.

the way in which I have presented the words of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, is accurate, ethical and trustworthy.

Theology.

a·pol·o·get·ics (-pl-jtks)

n. (used with a sing. verb)
1. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.
2. Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.

You cannot prove me wrong in either case.

I'm not obligated to prove you wrong. You are obligated to support your claims.

There's plenty of time to waste on this in other threads. Derail tactic will have to wait.

Unless your calculator can show a sum after 0 times the known and unseen universe.

Do you contend that the existence of blind folks has caused the universe to no longer exist?

Are we talking about gay blind folks? Otherwise, off to another thead.

A Universe made up of real stuff.

What's your god made of?

I'll ask Him when I see Him. But what about this OP huh?

All my positions claim is tolerance and diversity be implemented the way the tolerance and diversity crowd demands it to be so.

"Except for y'all over there, y'all gotta call yourselves something different than the word I seek to reserve for my sole, exclusive use!"

They are inventing a new religious movement. Ours has the marriage thing detailed immutably. 2000-years worth.

Thanks for getting back on track.

I am writing in the 21st Century.

That doesn't contain your notions to it.

Chick-fil-A happened in the 21st century.

So, my positions are supported by 21st Century knowledge. I have no spriit medium to conjure up dead people that used to be into gay sex. By the way, there are rules in the Bible...

Theology.

a·pol·o·get·ics (-pl-jtks)

n. (used with a sing. verb)
1. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.
2. Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.

that prohibit me from doing that too. And 21st Cenrury-wise, both you and I know that is a waste of time and money. Why pay for a scam huh?

Indeed. Why pay in the oppression of others for the scam of self-righteous religious zealots?

Rahm Emmanuel and the other usual suspects didn't look like religious zealots to me. Just zealots of a different cause.

You DARE post this OP in C&A, and then have the gall to declare for others how they should approach your bias?

It's called debate.

That's how it works. One person takes one side and the other person takes the other side.

This isn't a hippy commune site.

When you demand that folks reference the Bible in their arguments, you engage in...

Theology.

Yup:

a·pol·o·get·ics (-pl-jtks)

n. (used with a sing. verb)
1. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.
2. Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.

Like Jesus called Christ. And of course God at the begiining of mankind's history with Him?

I challenge you to show this God was at the beginning of mankind's history.

1st challenge.

Isn't this your second challenge?

I stand in a long line of Fundies then. Going all the way back to the garden.

What garden?

The one where all the oil comes from now.

Gay history is outside of the Bible too Joe. How come soooooooo many civilizations, cultures and people found it (and find it still) unacceptable?

Doesn't matter.

I challenge you to show your god ain't happy with it.
1st challenge.

Third you mean. But anyway, you asked for extrabiblical points. I offered secular history.

In ancient Greece, the recipient of gay sex was denied being able to become a Greek citizen. Long before Christians were persecuted by Romans under Nero. A man (Nero) that married another man (Sporos).

None of this indicates a god is unhappy with the sexual proclivities of humans.

You have a person in this thread that presented a position that Jesus blessed pederasty.

Here's Jesus on sex with children:

Luke 17:2
It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.
Mark 9:42
"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his ...
Matthew 18:6
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be ...

So much for Jesus being all about loooooooovvvvvve.

"Christianity and Apologetics"??????

Um, that sounds like the ONLY place it should be debated. You do know how apologetics works? It's not about an apology like: "Dude, I'm so sorry," it is "apologia." Defending a position.

So defend your position...

Show your god ain't happy with homosexual behavior.

I just did.

1st challenge in that phrasing, but it might be the 2nd'n on the gist there.

I've referenced gay goings-on, historical works, and current events. Hardly just the Bible.

While demanding this is a theological discussion.

You have repeatedly demanded folks reference the Bible to argue their positions.

Theology.

a·pol·o·get·ics (-pl-jtks)

n. (used with a sing. verb)
1. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.
2. Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.

Tums? Pepto? I'd like you to get better.

I'll get better when you quit hiding behind a god you can't show exists in order to promote your biases.

Biases? Hardly:

Pederasty and Homosexuality by David Thorstad

http://williamapercy.com/wiki/index.php ... osexuality

[Speech to the Semana Cultural Lésbica-Gay, Mexico City, June 26, 1998. More than 600 people attended the talk: standing room only, and many had to be turned away. This is an English version of the speech, which was given in Spanish.]

"The pederast movement today stresses the liberation and empowerment of young people. Instead of pedagogy, democracy. Rather than a Greek-love mentor relationship, the companionship of independent and autonomous individuals. In place of male supremacy, a vision of sexual, economic, and political liberation for all. Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream."

The issue of love between men and boys has intersected the gay movement since the late nineteenth century, with the rise of the first gay rights movement in Germany. In the United States, as the gay movement has retreated from its vision of sexual liberation, in favor of integration and assimilation into existing social and political structures, it has increasingly sought to marginalize and even demonize cross-generational love. Pederasty—that is, love between a man and a youth of 12 to 18 years of age—say middle-class homosexuals, lesbians, and feminists, has nothing to do with gay liberation. Some go so far as to claim, absurdly, that it is a heterosexual phenomenon, or even "sexual abuse." What a travesty!

Pederasty is the main form that male homosexuality has acquired throughout Western civilization—and not only in the West! Pederasty is inseparable from the high points of Western culture—ancient Greece and the Renaissance.

In Germany, in the late nineteenth century, pederasty was an integral part of the new gay movement. The first gay journal in the world—Der Eigene, published beginning in 1896 (one year before the formation of the first homosexual rights group, the Scientific Humanitarian Committee of Magnus Hirschfeld)—was a pederast and anarchist journal "for male culture" with an individualist anarchist outlook based on the ideas of Max Stirner (author of Der Einzige und sein Eigentum). Its publisher, Adolf Brand, was a leading figure of the gay movement throughout the first decades, until the Nazis came to power. The journal continued to appear until 1933. Brand died in an Allied bombing of Berlin in 1945.

Another leading pederast and writer, Benedict Friedlaender, was also a leader of Hirschfeld's committee, until 1908 when he committed suicide. Not unlike today, the two groups—the pederasts in the Gemeinschaft der Eigenen (the Community of Self-Owners) and the Hirschfeld group—constituted two wings of the gay movement.

Your attempt to have a theological discussion in the confines of C&A sickens me.

Apolgetics.

Hello?

It's just a shame you ain't apologetic about hiding behind a god you can't show exists in order to promote your biases.

a·pol·o·get·ics (-pl-jtks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)
1. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.
2. Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.

Everything about your disgusting, unmoving position regarding how you think homosexuals should be treated is vile and putrid.

Is it too late for me to report this personal attack? But I've gotten worse from people like you in places like this.

That's an attack on your position, not you personally.

I don't care either way.

I'm ashamed to know your OP has been allowed to stay in the hallowed halls of C&A this long.

Because any honest treatment of this subject is appropriate for this area.

Then show you're honest when you declare you know a god's opinion.

1st challenge.

This is getting boring.

Tel me, why is the OP so bad?

'Cause it points to the Bible and says, "Look at me, I'm getting after these folks, and y'all oughta too!"

While being oblivious to the fact that you, nor that book, can show you speak for gods.

Show me where I misrepresent what's in that book? I quote it verbatim.

It gives every single demand of the gay community.

I'd dare sat the demand of the gay community is to be left alone.

If only . . .

[99percentatheism]

I find it hard to believe this same sex marriage thing is even an issue. They are still humans. Here in america everyone has the right to live their life however they want to, so long as it does not conflict others rights. This is the reason their is a separation between church and government. It does not matter what a 2,000 year old book says, this is the 21st century, not the dark ages!

The Fench Revolution, which wanted to eliminate Christian values, wasn't in the Dark Ages. It was actually an expression of the Enlightenment age and the advent of humanism.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel: "Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago values." - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colu ... 896.column

Christian values are not Chicago values.

This from the Mayor of a MAJOR American city (and former Obama Chief of Staff) with hundreds of thousands of "Christians" with the same values as Chick-fil-A owner Dan Cathy. In a country with millions and millions of Christians with the same values as Chick-fil-A owner Dan Cathy. In a world where hundreds and hundreds of millions of Christians have the same values as Chick-fil-A owner Dan Cathy.

Dark ages? How about return to the Roman days of Christians in the Coliseum?

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


- http://www.earlychristians.org/expansio ... ion_3.html

[Richard81]

What im saying is that this should not be an issue. In the 21st century, people have the right to live their own lives. Thats why I mentioned the dark ages, people did not have that right during that time. But this is 21st century america. Everyone should have the same rights. If the only reason we have to make same sex marriage illegal is the views of a religious group, then it should not be made illegal, the church and government are separate for this reason. This should not be an issue.

[KCKID]

What im saying is that this should not be an issue. In the 21st century, people have the right to live their own lives. Thats why I mentioned the dark ages, people did not have that right during that time. But this is 21st century america.

Correction. This is the world-wide web and not everything revolves around America ...surprise, surprise . . .

I reside in Australia. Others who participate on this forum are also from different countries. This is 21st century the world.

Everyone should have the same rights. If the only reason we have to make same sex marriage illegal is the views of a religious group, then it should not be made illegal, the church and government are separate for this reason. This should not be an issue.

I absolutely agree with you.

[kayky]

I'm reposting this, 99. I'm going pretend you overlooked it on accident.

Kayky:
99, I find your attempt to twist the Bible's position on slavery both disingenuous and hypocritical.

99:
Ya don't say. Did you just now figure that out? I've know that since you employed the tactic.

Tactic? Pointing out to you what the Bible clearly says is a tactic? Isn't that the tactic you've been using throughout this thread?

Kayky: The Bible simply takes slavery for granted.

Yes. Reality is hard to escape.

It certainly is.

Kayky: Take the Ten Commandments, for example.

99:
With or without permission?

You realize what I'd be doing if I took them without permission? Violating one of them. At least.

A little jocularity from 99? I didn't think you had it in you.

Kayky: Imagine if God were to actually give us ten rules to live by.

99:
All I can do is imagine that. I have no time machine.

A time machine wouldn't help you. The whole Sinai thing? It never actually happened.

Kayky: Think of how much human suffering could have been prevented if God had simply banned slavery.

99:
Well, loking at what happened when "man" banned slavery, nothing. In fact, how many people willingly enslave themselves now? Ever been to a bankruptcy court hearing? They get out of debt and sign up for debt as soon as their credit rating gets better. And, it looks to me that humans like being "mastered" by other human beings all over the world.

People continue to rob and murder. Still God saw fit to say that these were sins.

Kayky: Instead God evidently thought it worse to covet your neighbor's slaves. These people are placed in the same category as oxen and donkeys. Is this the God you worship?

99:
It sounds like it. But you have not referenced any Biblical scripture so I can't make a definitive statement. There are lots of gods out there. Almost of of which I do not believe in. See my username?

Deuteronomy 5:21b

Neither shall you desire your neighbor's house, or field, or male or female slave, ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Kayky: So is slavery okay? If not, then the Bible can be wrong. Rip the scales from your eyes, man.

99:
There are lot's of contradictions in the Bible aboiut several things. It's why it rings as abslutely true from beginning to end. God for example, says he's going to wipe out Isreal, what we have come to know as the Jewish people, and then goes against what he says and allows them to get off the hook. It looks like we are dealing with reality in the Bible.

What does this have to do with the debate at hand?

Now, if you can show us ANYWHERE where there is contradiction on marriage being a man and a woman then a new denomination based on your Biblical theology should be well founded ansd should be able to thrive in its theology.

All I have to do is show that the Bible is wrong about one social issue, and your whole house of cards comes tumbling down. The Bible is wrong about slavery. It is also wrong about homosexuality.

Hmmmm, Mega Churches, Conservative Evangelcial Christians.

Huh???