The Gay Denomination?

99percentatheism · Post by **99percentatheism** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:09 am

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?

Clownboat · Post by **Clownboat** » Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:06 pm

Which "the Bible" contends against. I have asked ateists on several occasions to read the Bible to see if they can find any references to support of gay marriage or homosexuality anywhere in the New Testament and they have been honest and said no. But they did say they found just the opposite.

I can't find any reference in the Bible that supports "genital piercings". Therefore, the god of the Bible is against "genital piercings" and anyone that gets a genital piercing should start their own denomination.

Insert all sorts of things in for "genital piercings". Slippery slop if: Bible does not support "X", therefore people that do "X" should start their own denomination.

Jesus, did tell us to love our fellow man as much as we love ourselves though. "I" don't think you are doing that and "I" don't thing Jesus would approve of what you are doing. That is probably why "I" see it as you using the Bible as a weapon.

Clownboat · Post by **Clownboat** » Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:20 pm

And, as you have ponted out when you do use the Bible accurately, Jesus never said a word about homosexuals or homosexuality.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!
If homosexuality would send people to hell, I believe Jesus would have said so. Why does he seem silent on the issue?

I would like to remind the readers of this real life happening:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/do ... 497556.htm

She looks like a woman, acts like a woman and got married as a wife. But she couldn't bear children because she is actually a man.

A Jiangsu native who always thought she was a woman - and so did everybody else - actually had two hidden testicles, no ovaries and no uterus, devastating her life.

Her congenital anomaly was surgically removed, but she cannot bear children and a chromosome examination confirmed that "she" is actually a "he."

The case is one in 10,000.

You're crazy if you expect me to believe that a god would create 1 out of 10,000 people with hidden testicles and send homosexuals to hell.

99percentatheism · Post by **99percentatheism** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 8:12 am

Clownboat wrote:
And, as you have ponted out when you do use the Bible accurately, Jesus never said a word about homosexuals or homosexuality.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!
If homosexuality would send people to hell, I believe Jesus would have said so. Why does he seem silent on the issue?

I would like to remind the readers of this real life happening:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/do ... 497556.htm

She looks like a woman, acts like a woman and got married as a wife. But she couldn't bear children because she is actually a man.

A Jiangsu native who always thought she was a woman - and so did everybody else - actually had two hidden testicles, no ovaries and no uterus, devastating her life.

Her congenital anomaly was surgically removed, but she cannot bear children and a chromosome examination confirmed that "she" is actually a "he."

The case is one in 10,000.

You're crazy if you expect me to believe that a god would create 1 out of 10,000 people with hidden testicles and send homosexuals to hell.

Are you attempting to present the gay pride movement on a birth defect apologia?

That would be a very interesting turn of events.

99percentatheism · Post by **99percentatheism** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 8:16 am

Clownboat

Which "the Bible" contends against. I have asked ateists on several occasions to read the Bible to see if they can find any references to support of gay marriage or homosexuality anywhere in the New Testament and they have been honest and said no. But they did say they found just the opposite.

I can't find any reference in the Bible that supports "genital piercings". Therefore, the god of the Bible is against "genital piercings" and anyone that gets a genital piercing should start their own denomination.

Genital piercings do not alter and redefine marriage. Nor does it alter the negativity towards homosexuality and homosexuals in the New Testament ". . . such were some of you.". Jesus defined marriage, and there was no same gender coupling even hinted at. He referenced God in the beginning and brought the formulation into the New Testament: Man and woman. Everywhere marriage, husbands and wives is mentioned, it is man and woman. And of course, Jesus never said a word about changing the abomination/detestable definition of homosexual sex acts. He was Torah observant.

Insert all sorts of things in for "genital piercings". Slippery slop if: Bible does not support "X", therefore people that do "X" should start their own denomination.

The slippery slope is no longer theory. Gay marriage and teaching gay pride in our schools shows that the slippery slope fact is realized.

The so-called "gay agenda" is pure reality. It's not just a list for groceries, it is a full scale change of morality. And when pointed at Christian truth and the New Testament testimony, it is an afront with no longer a pretense to hide the agenda.

Jesus, did tell us to love our fellow man as much as we love ourselves though. "I" don't think you are doing that and "I" don't thing Jesus would approve of what you are doing. That is probably why "I" see it as you using the Bible as a weapon.

Jesus didn't preach that love was an anything goes proposition. In fact it is just the opposite. If you "love" someone, you preach repentance and forgiveness. He detailed that those that would not repent were to be defined as such and left to their own devices. Jesus never said a word about celebrating sin and sinning as if it were not sin and sinning but was a congenital condition that could be excused away. In fact, your judgmentalism towards me shows that even you see limits to the Gospel message. And any observation of the liberal perspective shows a great deal of judgmentalism, it is just rather convoluted.when compared to the New Testament witness.

Clownboat · Post by **Clownboat** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:54 am

99percentatheism wrote:
Clownboat wrote:
And, as you have ponted out when you do use the Bible accurately, Jesus never said a word about homosexuals or homosexuality.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!
If homosexuality would send people to hell, I believe Jesus would have said so. Why does he seem silent on the issue?

I would like to remind the readers of this real life happening:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/do ... 497556.htm

She looks like a woman, acts like a woman and got married as a wife. But she couldn't bear children because she is actually a man.

A Jiangsu native who always thought she was a woman - and so did everybody else - actually had two hidden testicles, no ovaries and no uterus, devastating her life.

Her congenital anomaly was surgically removed, but she cannot bear children and a chromosome examination confirmed that "she" is actually a "he."

The case is one in 10,000.

You're crazy if you expect me to believe that a god would create 1 out of 10,000 people with hidden testicles and send homosexuals to hell.
Are you attempting to present the gay pride movement on a birth defect apologia?

That would be a very interesting turn of events.

No.

What's the matter? Got nothing to say in regards to the article I presented?
What would you do in her/his shoes? Would you remain married?

Why would a god create people like this and then call them an abomination and then send them to a fiery hell? I don't think he would, thus one more strike against your claims.

Clownboat · Post by **Clownboat** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 12:02 pm

99percentatheism wrote:
Clownboat

Which "the Bible" contends against. I have asked ateists on several occasions to read the Bible to see if they can find any references to support of gay marriage or homosexuality anywhere in the New Testament and they have been honest and said no. But they did say they found just the opposite.

I can't find any reference in the Bible that supports "genital piercings". Therefore, the god of the Bible is against "genital piercings" and anyone that gets a genital piercing should start their own denomination.

Genital piercings do not alter and redefine marriage. Nor does it alter the negativity towards homosexuality and homosexuals in the New Testament ". . . such were some of you.". Jesus defined marriage, and there was no same gender coupling even hinted at. He referenced God in the beginning and brought the formulation into the New Testament: Man and woman. Everywhere marriage, husbands and wives is mentioned, it is man and woman. And of course, Jesus never said a word about changing the abomination/detestable definition of homosexual sex acts. He was Torah observant.
Let the readers note that 99% does not seem to be consistent with his "find it in the Bible stance".

Insert all sorts of things in for "genital piercings". Slippery slop if: Bible does not support "X", therefore people that do "X" should start their own denomination.

The slippery slope is no longer theory. Gay marriage and teaching gay pride in our schools shows that the slippery slope fact is realized.
The slippery slope is the stance that "if it's not in the Bible, it is not ok". It had nothing to do with teaching gay pride or gay marriage.

The so-called "gay agenda" is pure reality. It's not just a list for groceries, it is a full scale change of morality. And when pointed at Christian truth and the New Testament testimony, it is an afront with no longer a pretense to hide the agenda.
Religious paranoia - Here the patients suffer from a permanent delusion of a primarily religious nature. He for example believes, that he is the messenger of God who has been sent to the world to propagate some religion.
http://www.depression-guide.com/paranoia.htm

Jesus, did tell us to love our fellow man as much as we love ourselves though. "I" don't think you are doing that and "I" don't thing Jesus would approve of what you are doing. That is probably why "I" see it as you using the Bible as a weapon.

Jesus didn't preach that love was an anything goes proposition. In fact it is just the opposite. If you "love" someone, you preach repentance and forgiveness. He detailed that those that would not repent were to be defined as such and left to their own devices. Jesus never said a word about celebrating sin and sinning as if it were not sin and sinning but was a congenital condition that could be excused away. In fact, your judgmentalism towards me shows that even you see limits to the Gospel message. And any observation of the liberal perspective shows a great deal of judgmentalism, it is just rather convoluted.when compared to the New Testament witness.
My thought remains:
Jesus, did tell us to love our fellow man as much as we love ourselves though. "I" don't think you are doing that and "I" don't thing Jesus would approve of what you are doing. That is probably why "I" see it as you using the Bible as a weapon.

KCKID · Post by **KCKID** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:57 pm

I don't recall this particular item having been addressed, so . . .how would a 'Gay Denomination' accomodate homosexual Christians who hold different spiritual beliefs from one another? I mean, would we have a 'gay version' of an Seventh Day Adventist Church? A 'gay' version of a Baptist Church? etc. etc? As it is there are hundreds of 'heterosexual' denominations so would there also be hundreds of 'gay' denominations?

Has it by now occurred to everyone just how asinine the topic of this thread actually is?

99percentatheism · Post by **99percentatheism** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 11:06 pm

KCKID
I don't recall this particular item having been addressed, so . . .how would a 'Gay Denomination' accomodate homosexual Christians who hold different spiritual beliefs from one another?

Who cares? That is their problem.

I mean, would we have a 'gay version' of an Seventh Day Adventist Church?

Only as either an invasion or a excommnication.

A 'gay' version of a Baptist Church?

Now that denom has suffered from the intrusion of gay theology.

etc. etc? As it is there are hundreds of 'heterosexual' denominations so would there also be hundreds of 'gay' denominations?

Hopefully. Well-defined and easily recognized for what they are.

Has it by now occurred to everyone just how asinine the topic of this thread actually is?[/color]

Since we have seen throughout history, spinoff movements from out of the Christian Church to set up their own gig, expecting something as provably innappropriate as forcing gay culture into Bible-affirming congregations is, asinine doesn't quite fit.

But looking at definition number 2 below, maybe you were attempting a pun?

asÂ·iÂ·nine (s-nn)
adj.
1. Utterly stupid or silly: asinine behavior.
2. Of, relating to, or resembling an ass.

"asinine?"

How inhosptible KCKID.

Now, can you come up with any reason why a well-defined gay denomination isn't quite the tolerance and diversity situation KID?

99percentatheism · Post by **99percentatheism** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 11:20 pm

Clownboat

99percentatheism wrote:
Clownboat

Which "the Bible" contends against. I have asked ateists on several occasions to read the Bible to see if they can find any references to support of gay marriage or homosexuality anywhere in the New Testament and they have been honest and said no. But they did say they found just the opposite.

I can't find any reference in the Bible that supports "genital piercings". Therefore, the god of the Bible is against "genital piercings" and anyone that gets a genital piercing should start their own denomination.

Genital piercings do not alter and redefine marriage. Nor does it alter the negativity towards homosexuality and homosexuals in the New Testament ". . . such were some of you.". Jesus defined marriage, and there was no same gender coupling even hinted at. He referenced God in the beginning and brought the formulation into the New Testament: Man and woman. Everywhere marriage, husbands and wives is mentioned, it is man and woman. And of course, Jesus never said a word about changing the abomination/detestable definition of homosexual sex acts. He was Torah observant.

Let the readers note that 99% does not seem to be consistent with his "find it in the Bible stance".
It's like being in an episode of the Twilight Zone reading a comment like that. My consistency on my stance on the Bible is ubiquitous.

Insert all sorts of things in for "genital piercings". Slippery slop if: Bible does not support "X", therefore people that do "X" should start their own denomination.

The slippery slope is no longer theory. Gay marriage and teaching gay pride in our schools shows that the slippery slope fact is realized.

The slippery slope is the stance that "if it's not in the Bible, it is not ok". It had nothing to do with teaching gay pride or gay marriage.

The so-called "gay agenda" is pure reality. It's not just a list for groceries, it is a full scale change of morality. And when pointed at Christian truth and the New Testament testimony, it is an afront with no longer a pretense to hide the agenda.

Religious paranoia - Here the patients suffer from a permanent delusion of a primarily religious nature.
Let's see, those that use their digestive tract, or manmade phallic substitutes as sexual organs are not mentally misguided, but Christians that have accurately chronicled the step by step advance of the gay agenda from its ever-increasing encroachment on society (from historical organizations such as the Mattachine Society) AND into the Church - via neologism and academia - are somehow the mentally ill?

Twilight Zone episode here we come.

He for example believes, that he is the messenger of God who has been sent to the world to propagate some religion.
http://www.depression-guide.com/paranoia.htm
That website may exist, but there is no foundation of reality to your charge against me. I just agree with what the New Testament clearly says. Anmd please note, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. That leaves it in the bad behavior category.

Jesus, did tell us to love our fellow man as much as we love ourselves though. "I" don't think you are doing that and "I" don't thing Jesus would approve of what you are doing. That is probably why "I" see it as you using the Bible as a weapon.
The sword of political correctness used against a Christian?

Alinsky's children doing what he taught them.

Jesus didn't preach that love was an anything goes proposition. In fact it is just the opposite. If you "love" someone, you preach repentance and forgiveness. He detailed that those that would not repent were to be defined as such and left to their own devices. Jesus never said a word about celebrating sin and sinning as if it were not sin and sinning but was a congenital condition that could be excused away. In fact, your judgmentalism towards me shows that even you see limits to the Gospel message. And any observation of the liberal perspective shows a great deal of judgmentalism, it is just rather convoluted.when compared to the New Testament witness.

My thought remains:

Jesus, did tell us to love our fellow man as much as we love ourselves though. "I" don't think you are doing that and "I" don't think Jesus would approve of what you are doing. That is probably why "I" see it as you using the Bible as a weapon.
You don't see the irony here that it IS YOU that is claiming messenger of God status?

Kinda humorous to point out.

Oh, and talking about history:

Mattachine Society

The Homosexual Revolt

The May 1959 issue of the Mattachine Review, an American homophile magazine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattachine_Society

Clownboat · Post by **Clownboat** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:55 pm

99percentatheism wrote:
Clownboat

99percentatheism wrote:
Clownboat

Which "the Bible" contends against. I have asked ateists on several occasions to read the Bible to see if they can find any references to support of gay marriage or homosexuality anywhere in the New Testament and they have been honest and said no. But they did say they found just the opposite.

I can't find any reference in the Bible that supports "genital piercings". Therefore, the god of the Bible is against "genital piercings" and anyone that gets a genital piercing should start their own denomination.

Genital piercings do not alter and redefine marriage. Nor does it alter the negativity towards homosexuality and homosexuals in the New Testament ". . . such were some of you.". Jesus defined marriage, and there was no same gender coupling even hinted at. He referenced God in the beginning and brought the formulation into the New Testament: Man and woman. Everywhere marriage, husbands and wives is mentioned, it is man and woman. And of course, Jesus never said a word about changing the abomination/detestable definition of homosexual sex acts. He was Torah observant.

Let the readers note that 99% does not seem to be consistent with his "find it in the Bible stance".
It's like being in an episode of the Twilight Zone reading a comment like that. My consistency on my stance on the Bible is ubiquitous.

Insert all sorts of things in for "genital piercings". Slippery slop if: Bible does not support "X", therefore people that do "X" should start their own denomination.

The slippery slope is no longer theory. Gay marriage and teaching gay pride in our schools shows that the slippery slope fact is realized.

The slippery slope is the stance that "if it's not in the Bible, it is not ok". It had nothing to do with teaching gay pride or gay marriage.

The so-called "gay agenda" is pure reality. It's not just a list for groceries, it is a full scale change of morality. And when pointed at Christian truth and the New Testament testimony, it is an afront with no longer a pretense to hide the agenda.

Religious paranoia - Here the patients suffer from a permanent delusion of a primarily religious nature.
Let's see, those that use their digestive tract, or manmade phallic substitutes as sexual organs are not mentally misguided, but Christians that have accurately chronicled the step by step advance of the gay agenda from its ever-increasing encroachment on society (from historical organizations such as the Mattachine Society) AND into the Church - via neologism and academia - are somehow the mentally ill?

Twilight Zone episode here we come.

He for example believes, that he is the messenger of God who has been sent to the world to propagate some religion.
http://www.depression-guide.com/paranoia.htm
That website may exist, but there is no foundation of reality to your charge against me. I just agree with what the New Testament clearly says. Anmd please note, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. That leaves it in the bad behavior category.

Jesus, did tell us to love our fellow man as much as we love ourselves though. "I" don't think you are doing that and "I" don't thing Jesus would approve of what you are doing. That is probably why "I" see it as you using the Bible as a weapon.
The sword of political correctness used against a Christian?

Alinsky's children doing what he taught them.

Jesus didn't preach that love was an anything goes proposition. In fact it is just the opposite. If you "love" someone, you preach repentance and forgiveness. He detailed that those that would not repent were to be defined as such and left to their own devices. Jesus never said a word about celebrating sin and sinning as if it were not sin and sinning but was a congenital condition that could be excused away. In fact, your judgmentalism towards me shows that even you see limits to the Gospel message. And any observation of the liberal perspective shows a great deal of judgmentalism, it is just rather convoluted.when compared to the New Testament witness.

My thought remains:

Jesus, did tell us to love our fellow man as much as we love ourselves though. "I" don't think you are doing that and "I" don't think Jesus would approve of what you are doing. That is probably why "I" see it as you using the Bible as a weapon.
You don't see the irony here that it IS YOU that is claiming messenger of God status?

Kinda humorous to point out.

Oh, and talking about history:

Mattachine Society

The Homosexual Revolt

The May 1959 issue of the Mattachine Review, an American homophile magazine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattachine_Society
I would like to remind the readers of this real life happening:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/do ... 497556.htm

She looks like a woman, acts like a woman and got married as a wife. But she couldn't bear children because she is actually a man.

A Jiangsu native who always thought she was a woman - and so did everybody else - actually had two hidden testicles, no ovaries and no uterus, devastating her life.

Her congenital anomaly was surgically removed, but she cannot bear children and a chromosome examination confirmed that "she" is actually a "he."

The case is one in 10,000.

You're crazy if you expect me to believe that a god would create 1 out of 10,000 people with hidden testicles and send homosexuals to hell.

What's the matter? Got nothing to say in regards to the article I presented?
What would you do in her/his shoes? Would you remain married?

Why would a god create people like this and then call them an abomination and then send them to a fiery hell? I don't think he would, thus one more strike against your claims.

Care to address this piece of evidence that goes against what you claim? What if you, or someone like you went to the doctor tomorrow and found out that in reality you have a man member, but upon further examination, you also have a uterus and your chromosomes confirm that you are really a women?

Would you divorce your wife and try to find a man, or would you continue to live as a self described abomination? Or would you just prefer to ignore this and pretend it doesn't happen to real people so you can continue your assault on the homosexuals?