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?

[99percentatheism]

KCKID

cnorman18
Another observation about my perennial question, which 99percentatheism adamantly refuses to answer:

(In case anyone's forgotten -- ! -- that question is, "Are virtually all gays promiscuous and predatory monsters who prey on straights and attempt to "recruit" them into their ranks? Yes or no?")

The most ridiculous thing about this situation is that the only possible factual answer to that question is "No, they are not."

Many of us on this forum PERSONALLY KNOW gays who do NOT fit this pejorative and slanderous description, and KNOW FOR AN ABSOLUTE FACT that the answer to this question is "No" and could not possibly be anything else. Not even "maybe." This isn't even a matter of opinion; it's a matter of FACT, and that FACT is clear and obvious to all. The only answer here is "No."

I PERSONALLY KNOW gays. And every one has had excessive numbers of sexual partners. And certainly more than one.

What's 'excessive?' More than one? Is homosexual promiscuity worse than heterosexual promiscuity? Does it matter if one has partners serially on concurrently?

I find it interesting that you completely ignored the other 90% of my post. Especially the gay guy writing about the promiscuity of gay culture. But I am not surprised at all.

As a young'n, before I had ever heard the terms 'homosexual' or 'gay', most of my heterosexual peer group behaved little better than dogs 'on heat'. [/quote]

Mine didn't. And at that time in my life I didn't know what a Christian life was all about either. But I knew that o decent parent wanted their child to be "loose"or "immoral."

I grew up believing that promiscuity between guy and girl was not only 'the norm' for any guy under 30 but expected.

And obviously your group has gained authority and influence in the world. In America "Gansta Culture" has taken a strangle-hold in our school system.

The more females one 'laid' the more masculine one was. Has that changed any? Or, has promiscuity become a 'gay only' area?

Even in ancient Greece, homosexuality and homosexuals were looked down on.

Look at this:

But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.�

Gensis 19

And when Lot spoke out against this group's agenda?

“Get out of our way,� they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.� They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

"And now this fellow wants to play the judge."

How uttery familiar that sounds. So 21st century.

I find it interesting that you completely ignored the other 90% of my post. Especially the gay guy writing about the promiscuity of gay culture. But I am not surprised at all.[/quote]

As a young'n, before I had ever heard the terms 'homosexual' or 'gay', most of my heterosexual peer group behaved little better than dogs 'on heat'. I grew up believing that promiscuity between guy and girl was not only 'the norm' for any guy under 30 but expected. The more females one 'laid' the more masculine one was. Has that changed any? Or, has promiscuity become a 'gay only' area?[/quote]

[99percentatheism]

@ cnorman18:

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.

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

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. 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?

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.’

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

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.

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

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

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

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?

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.

[cnorman18]

Deleted. My error.

[cnorman18]

@ cnorman18:

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.

So have your thinly veiled gibes directed at my conversion. 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.

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

By asking a simple question?

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?

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

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).

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

[otseng]

It's hardly a debate when one has such a one-eyed position on this topic as you do and are oblivious to the positions of others.

I see you know nothing about debate too.

You're looking for an orgy. I no longer seek that endeavor.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making any comments of a personal nature.

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.

[Clownboat]

And obviously your group has gained authority and influence in the world. In America "Gansta Culture" has taken a strangle-hold in our school system.

Sounds like paranoia to me. Can I guess that this Gangsta Culture is at war with your religious beliefs?

I know of no Gangsta Culture and at this point must chalk this statement (any many others of yours) up to religious paranoia.

Many of us think your beliefs are hateful and evil, but I have no desire to attack you or your beliefs. Like Cnorm said, having you share your beliefs over and over really helps our "loving" side in the long run anyway.

Don't get paranoid about our disagreement with your statements. We wont hurt you.

[99percentatheism]

cnorman18

@ cnorman18:

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?

So have your thinly veiled gibes directed at my conversion.

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

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.

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.

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".

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

Rather, it is called "analogy."

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.

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.

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.

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.’

[/quote]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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"

2. 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"

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

[99percentatheism]

Clownboat

And obviously your group has gained authority and influence in the world. In America "Gansta Culture" has taken a strangle-hold in our school system.

Sounds like paranoia to me.

Of course it does.

Can I guess that this Gangsta Culture is at war with your religious beliefs?

100% yes.

I know of no Gangsta Culture and at this point must chalk this statement (any many others of yours) up to religious paranoia.

I absolutely believe you. I have been interacting with people like you for a long time now.

From the USA to "over the pond." I have the following old article saved on a zip drive. Intersting that even Obama notices the dire school system still grinding ever-onward today.

Gangsta culture a deadly virus, says top TV presenter

by Martin Bright, home affairs editor The Observer, Saturday 11 September 2004:


Garth Crooks: 'Think you are gangsters? Grow up.'


One of the best known black personalities on British TV said yesterday that 'gangsta' street culture was a 'deadly virus' that was destroying a generation of African-Caribbean boys.
BBC sports presenter and former Tottenham Hotspur striker Garth Crooks said there was a direct link between films and rap music glorifying violence and the drift of black boys away from education and into crime and violence.

'There is an epidemic out there, and it is killing some of our children. Do you think there could be a correlation between this and the growing dissipation of our cultural values?' he said.

Crooks's passionate plea to the black community to tackle the issue of gangsta street culture was delivered to 2,000 delegates attending the third London Schools and the Black Child conference to discuss the increasing crisis of black children's underperformance in the education system. Addressing himself directly to young black men, Crooks said: 'As for the youngsters in our community who think they are gangsters; grow up. You are pathetic. You are not gangsters or clever. You are kids and it's time to impose zero tolerance.'

He continued: 'Street culture will become a deadly virus ripping indiscriminately through our next gen eration, robbing millions of their potential.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/sep/1 ... ls.society

Many of us think your beliefs are hateful and evil,

That attitude has been around for a very, very long time:

“Get out of our way,� they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.�

Genesis 19:9

. . . but I have no desire to attack you or your beliefs. Like Cnorm said, having you share your beliefs over and over really helps our "loving" side in the long run anyway.

Don't get paranoid about our disagreement with your statements. We wont hurt you.

Gotta "love" the free exchange of ideas huh?

[cnorman18]

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.

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

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 different than my referencing "progressive and liberal" and "gay theology" and those that preach it.

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

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