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?

[KCKID]

This is a continuation of the above response to the recent post of 99percentatheism. Please, 99percent or anyone ...confirm or reject (by scriptural argument) the below item.

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Marriage ... Bible.html

Marriage in the Bible is portrayed in a variety of ways. Most Christians believe God will only accept an Adam and Eve style marriage yet scripture challenges and contradicts that viewpoint. Marriages in the Bible, whatever form they take, reflect the cultural values of Biblical times. Sexual practices which embraced pagan worship of the fertility goddess were not affirmed in scripture. Yet the Bible provides many examples of non-cultic marriage partnerships different than the Adam and Eve model, which are affirmed and blessed in scripture.

Diverse kinds of marriage which God affirmed and blessed in the Bible.

1. Polygamous Marriage, one man with more than one wife. A polygamous marriage is not an Adam and Eve style marriage relationship yet God accepted, affirmed and blessed polygamous marriages in scripture. Strangely enough, modern Christians reject polygamy, a Biblical form of marriage, on the basis that in our modern world, polygamy is illegal and is not affirmed by modern culture.

Polygamous marriage provides strong proof that God does not affirm the Complementarian view of Adam and Eve. Hagar was Abram's second wife, Genesis 16:3, while Sarah was still alive and married to Abraham.

Here is a brief list of polygamous marriages in the Bible. There are many more but these will demonstrate our point.
a. Lamech had two wives - Genesis 4:19.
b. Esau had three wives - Genesis 26:34 & 28:9.
c. Jacob had four wives - Genesis 29:28 & 30:4-9.
d. Gideon had many wives - Judges 8:30.
e. Abijah had 14 wives - II Chronicles 13:21.

2. Levirate Marriage, from the Latin ‘levir’ meaning ‘brother-in-law.’ In the ancient near East, if a man died without having children, his brother was expected to marry his widow and produce children to continue the lineage of the deceased brother, Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Marriage in the Bible. Obviously, this is not marriage in the Bible as portrayed in the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2. No western Christian today would practice this ancient Biblical law.

Think about it. Would Focus On The Family support any Christian in western society practicing levirate marriage? Focus On The Family would tell us that because levirate marriage is illegal in western society and levirate marriage goes against modern cultural values, therefore FOTF opposes levirate marriage. Modern views about marriage are culturally based.

The arguments of modern Christians against polygamy and levirate marriage (and gay marriage) are more culturally based than Biblically based. Non-gay Christians prefer to believe their arguments are Biblically based but the reality is, their arguments against gay marriage are culturally based because, in context, the Bible simply does not support their anti-gay stance or their personal views on marriage. We know that because anti-gay Christians reject all of these Biblical marriage models for cultural reasons instead of Biblical reasons.

3. Mixed marriage. Abraham and Sarah conspired to cause their slave girl Hagar to marry Abraham and produce children. Biblical cultures affirmed polygamy but modern western culture does not. This form of marriage in the Bible is a variation on polygamy yet different than polygamy because the slave girl had no option except compliance. Slaves did not have the right to say no! - Genesis 16:1ff. Marrying a slave girl is a Biblical form of marriage but modern Christians reject this form of marriage because it goes against basic human rights and modern cultural values.

The rationale used by modern Christians to reject gay marriage (that gay marriage goes against modern cultural values) actually could allow modern Christians in some places to affirm gay marriage if they were consistent and applied the same rationale to gay marriage that they apply to polygamy and levirate marriage and slave marriage.

4. Prisoner of war marriage, between Israelite warriors and Midianite virgins - Numbers 31:1-18. At God’s instruction, the Israelite Army killed all the men and boys of Midian and all the Midianite women who were not virgins. The Israelite warriors then married the surviving virgins, Numbers 31:18. This is certainly not Adam and Eve style marriage, where two people leave father and mother and cleave to each other in marriage, Genesis 2:24.

God never said about marriage what many Christians think He said about marriage. Most modern Christians would reject prisoner of war marriage even though it was a valid form of marriage in the Bible. Modern Christians vehemently oppose this form of Biblical marriage because it goes against modern law and modern cultural values.

Is this truth beginning to sink in, that marriage in the Bible encompasses much more than the marriage of Adam and Eve? Biblical marriage models reflect the culture in which they occurred. And that is precisely the point. In the Bible, God never said that He affirmed only the Adam and Eve marriage paradigm. Marriage in the Bible reflects the culture in which it occurred. Our approach today as faithful, Bible believing Christians should be to affirm marriage forms which are consistent with Biblical values.

Gay marriage is consistent with Biblical moral values of character, commitment, faithfulness, love and mutuality. Therefore the modern church should affirm and bless gay marriage. To do anything less does a grave injustice to your gay brothers and lesbian sisters. Gay marriage, a committed, faithful, loving, mutually satisfying, noncultic partnership between two men or two women, is entirely consistent with Biblical moral values and should be affirmed by modern Christians.

Using the cultural test for marriage in the Bible (Is it compatible with current cultural values?) which modern Christians employ to reject polygamy, levirate marriage, marriage with slaves and marriage with the virgin daughters of vanquished enemies, in some places can provide a principled basis to allow the modern church to affirm and bless gay marriage.

5. Slave marriage. This is different from a normal marriage in that a male slave had no right to keep his wife and children, if his master sold him or them, Exodus 21:1-6. Modern Christians reject this form of marriage in the Bible as wrong because: (a) it goes against our modern ethos of individual freedom, and (b) it goes against modern cultural values, and (c) it is illegal today.

6. Same sex marriage. The partnership of Jonathan and David is an example of same sex marriage in the Bible. Jonathan’s father referred to David as his son in law in I Samuel 18:21. There is more information about David becoming King Saul's son in law in our book, Gay Christian 101. David And Saul? by Julius Kronberg, 1885. Some believe this pictures David and Jonathan.

The Jonathan and David love story is the most emphasized human love story
in scripture. It receives more descriptive emphasis from God, the Ultimate Author of Scripture, than any heterosexual love story. Marriage in the Bible is not the vanilla concoction some modern Christians seem to think it is. The Hebrew words used to describe Jonathan and David’s love indicate romantic, emotional attachment. King Saul refers to their relationship with a vulgar Hebrew idiomatic expression indicating Jonathan and David were sexually intimate, I Samuel 20:30.

[KCKID]

I realize that I might come across as impatient but I'm waiting to hear from someone - preferably 99percentatheism - with regard to the quote from 99percentatheism and my post #1759.

“Haven’t you read,� he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’

- Jesus called Christ

I'm asking the question: How does one reconcile the above quote by Jesus (and oft used by Christians as an anti-gay marriage message) with God-approved polygamy, levirate marriage, marriage with slaves, marriage between a rapist and his victim and marriages with virgin daughters of vanquished enemies?

[KCKID]

[font=Comic Sans MS]Your move, 99percentatheism. Or, is this perhaps ...checkmate?[/font]

[99percentatheism]

[font=Comic Sans MS]Your move, 99percentatheism. Or, is this perhaps ...checkmate?[/font]

Checkmate from supplied gaychristian101 references? That's not exactly a place where agenda doesn't exist KID. I guess we should go to the Mormons for the theological answer about Jesus being the spirit brother of Satan?

Talk about providing itching ears with what they want to hear. Unlike, of course, Paul and the other voices that laid down the reality of Christian truth in their apologia (which many paid for with their blood being spilled by members of a society that completely approved of homosexuality) and the founding of the Church.

And here we have Jesus defining "what" a marriage is: No amount of spin can change the clear and immutable meaning of His words. Of course, humans can refuse them or start a heretical club to redefine them, but the definition of Christian history is something that can't be ignored:

“Haven’t you read,� he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’

- Jesus called Christ

In fact, celibacy testifies against your move KID and GC101's. It wasn't a redefining of marriage that was offered to The Church sir.

There is not one mention of the support of same gender marriage anywhere in New Testament theology. In fact the opposite can be found. You seem to be forgetting that.

And the Christians that authored the many New Testament letters and Godpels, without any shadow of a doubt, portray the reality of Jesus's teaching on what a marriage is.

Now, like the OP presents, homosexuals and their allies can do what they wilt, but they have no support from the New Testament for doing so. Pop culture has never trumped the Christian orthodoxy as detailed in the New testament. No matter how loud the changes are demanded by a new group selling a spinoff agenda.

Now, on your game board where you invent a new way of playing Chess, one where the pieces can move as they are not intended . . . (eh-hem), you won't achieve an end there either because any pop culture can change the rules if they don't like the ones set down.

Actually the game you are playing, is the embracng of chaos and that of course makes for DAH DAH DAH DAHHHHHHHH . . . anything goes.

On the honest board, you would be disqualified for going against the truth of how things were set out "at the formation of the game" and would have to do things right. Or leave the game. But the game you are playing, where emotionalism, selfishness, self-centeredness, anger and lust change the rules whenever they get in the way, you couldn't even come to a definition for check mate there either. Because, whenever someone doesn't like to have to face reality, they just get to redefine the tuth of it for how they feel at any given moment in history.

The New Testament record does not allow for the game you want to play. Nor does it approve of the new rules you present to invent a new one.

Check Mate?

That was declared against your move and the thousands like it that have popped up in Church history, around 2000-years ago.

I just recognize the Truth KID. I didn't invent it.

[KCKID]

Your move, 99percentatheism. Or, is this perhaps …checkmate?

Checkmate from supplied gaychristian101 references? That's not exactly a place where agenda doesn't exist KID. I guess we should go to the Mormons for the theological answer about Jesus being the spirit brother of Satan?

One’s “agenda� has nothing to do with “the facts�, 99percent. The facts are the facts no matter WHO presents them. However, I knew when I presented the item that you would criticize the source. You can bet your life that most Christian sources would avoid the biblical facts surrounding marriage like the plague! Do the right thing, 99percent, and address my previous post.

Talk about providing itching ears with what they want to hear.

Well, you certainly have not provided a blow-by-blow rebuttal of the item that I presented and asked for. Why? Because you can’t present a blow-by-blow rebut! Marriage as approved by the biblical God is not nearly as sugar-coated as YOUR group of itching ears want to hear. Far from it!

Unlike, of course, Paul and the other voices that laid down the reality of Christian truth in their apologia (which many paid for with their blood being spilled by members of a society that completely approved of homosexuality) and the founding of the Church.

Not a rebuttal of the item, nor the biblical FACTS about marriage but a typical 99percent red herring.

And here we have Jesus defining "what" a marriage is: No amount of spin can change the clear and immutable meaning of His words. Of course, humans can refuse them or start a heretical club to redefine them, but the definition of Christian history is something that can't be ignored:

“Haven’t you read,� he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’

- Jesus called Christ

Once again ...Jesus was responding to a question about divorce and aimed that response toward those who are already married and considering divorce. You have no ethical reason to keep on offering up that text to limit marriage to male and female or, indeed, to equate it to homosexuality at all. Had the question about divorce not been brought up then Jesus would not have had cause to bring up the topic in the first place.

The reason you DO keep bringing up that text IS, of course, because Jesus never said ONE WORD about homosexuality and so you have to invent a connection to the subject of homosexuality where no connection actually exists. I realize how frustrating it must be for you and yours that the ICON of Christianity – Jesus Christ Himself - NOWHERE supports your/their anti-gay stance. And, since this topic has led to such outcry and division within the modern Christian Church, one would SURELY expect that Jesus would have raised the subject IF it were to become an issue. But, He didn’t. All you have is a text (recorded and written by a third person anyway) that addresses a question about divorce that YOU have deceitfully interpreted as a blanket ban on homosexuality. You don't even address the actual INTENT of the quote ...i.e. no divorce. That’s dishonest, 99percent, and you – and most of the rest of us - know this.

In fact, celibacy testifies against your move KID and GC101's. It wasn't a redefining of marriage that was offered to The Church sir.

There is not one mention of the support of same gender marriage anywhere in New Testament theology. In fact the opposite can be found. You seem to be forgetting that.

I’m not forgetting anything. I don’t care what a book states or, more to the point, what it doesn’t state …as long as it’s being used to diminish and demean another human being. Any such texts should either be rejected or re-examined …probably the latter. And, the Bible IS merely a book (no disrespect intended …just stating a fact) that you and others have made into a religious icon. Remember ‘Thou shalt have no idols’? Clearly, the Bible is your idol and you allow your misinterpretations of it to control your thinking. By dwelling solely on the ‘nasty’ parts of the Bible – as you perceive them anyway – and singling out those YOU don’t like with ‘Godly’ condemnation speaks volumes about 99percentatheism and his bigoted mindset.

And the Christians that authored the many New Testament letters and Godpels, without any shadow of a doubt, portray the reality of Jesus's teaching on what a marriage is.

If you REALLY felt that strongly about God’s plan for marriage then you would be aiming that text at those thousands of divorced and re-married people who sit in the pews of most Christian Churches …those for whom that scripture WAS INTENDED!! But, you don’t. You instead aim it at homosexuals which, when taken in context, makes no sense at all. You are anti-gay but, obviously, not anti-divorce. Why?

Now, like the OP presents, homosexuals and their allies can do what they wilt, but they have no support from the New Testament for doing so. Pop culture has never trumped the Christian orthodoxy as detailed in the New testament. No matter how loud the changes are demanded by a new group selling a spinoff agenda.

The only objection from the NT pertaining to homosexuality (and heterosexuality for that matter) is that sexual activity not be performed ritually in the church setting to false idols. While some of the present Charismatic Churches border on pagan worship practices (and how!) I don’t yet recall having witnessed any fertility-type acts being performed to appease false idols. Perhaps that's the next fad. So, unless such lewd sexual practices are performed by ‘gays’ or ‘straights’ during worship service then there is no NT prohibition that I'm aware of with regard to one’s sexuality and their attending a church of their choice.

Now, on your game board where you invent a new way of playing Chess, one where the pieces can move as they are not intended . . . (eh-hem), you won't achieve an end there either because any pop culture can change the rules if they don't like the ones set down.

There are modern ‘rules’ with regard to whom one is sexually attracted? There are modern ‘rules’ with regard to whom one wishes to commit their lives? Really? As per my previous post, your ‘sugar-coated’ version of the relationship between man and woman is pretty well shot down in flames when it comes to how the biblical God views marriage. Even in the ‘best case’ scenarios of marriage, marriage simply meant that the female became the property of the male. You DO know that, do you not? So, don’t be glorifying marriage biblically since, if the truth be known, it would likely have been ‘hell’ for the woman for the most part. But then, she was under the thumb of the male (and God!) so she wouldn’t have had the right to complain! Culturally speaking, she was probably even content to be used as a baby-making door mat since she wouldn't have known differently. Today we DO know differently! Oh, 99percent . . .what are we to do with you ...?

Actually the game you are playing, is the embracng of chaos and that of course makes for DAH DAH DAH DAHHHHHHHH . . . anything goes.

Um . . .feel better for having gotten that out of your system ...? For a moment I thought you might be having a heart attack.

On the honest board, you would be disqualified for going against the truth of how things were set out "at the formation of the game" and would have to do things right. Or leave the game. But the game you are playing, where emotionalism, selfishness, self-centeredness, anger and lust change the rules whenever they get in the way, you couldn't even come to a definition for check mate there either. Because, whenever someone doesn't like to have to face reality, they just get to redefine the tuth of it for how they feel at any given moment in history.

The New Testament record does not allow for the game you want to play. Nor does it approve of the new rules you present to invent a new one.

Check Mate?

That was declared against your move and the thousands like it that have popped up in Church history, around 2000-years ago.

I just recognize the Truth KID. I didn't invent it.

You can’t handle the truth (apologies to Mr. Nicholson) because the truth clearly goes against your anti-gay stance. The truth is that you have no biblical grounds on which to discriminate against specific people and your suggestion that they start their own Christian denomination is made simply because you don’t like them. I have provided enough evidence throughout this long thread that ALL references to homosexuality in the Bible are limited to temple prostitution and idol worship practices. IF God, Paul, et al are/were against people making a choice based on their sexual orientation to partner with whomever they choose …we don’t know since the Bible does not address this. Temple prostitution and idol worship practices have NOTHING to do with the modern subject of homosexuality. You know that and yet you are unwilling to acknowledge the biblical truth.

So, I’m going to take a shot here and charge you officially with bigotry. You have no Bible support to malign a group of people with a specific sexual orientation, in fact, you glaring misuse the scriptures simply to bolster your campaign of hate. Are you a bigot as charged, 99percent?

[99percentatheism]

KCKID

Your move, 99percentatheism. Or, is this perhaps …checkmate?

Checkmate from supplied gaychristian101 references? That's not exactly a place where agenda doesn't exist KID. I guess we should go to the Mormons for the theological answer about Jesus being the spirit brother of Satan?

One’s “agenda� has nothing to do with “the facts�, 99percent. The facts are the facts no matter WHO presents them. However, I knew when I presented the item that you would criticize the source. You can bet your life that most Christian sources would avoid the biblical facts surrounding marriage like the plague! Do the right thing, 99percent, and address my previous post.

One's agenda has EVERYTHING to do with their opinions, positions and their "facts". Who are you trying to kid KID?

There is no such thing as same gender marriage anywhere offered OR supported in the Bible. It is an invention of the world and its ways. No aount of spin can alter that fact.

Talk about providing itching ears with what they want to hear.

Well, you certainly have not provided a blow-by-blow rebuttal of the item that I presented and asked for.

Ahh, the age old lib comeback: Where's your proof?

And when that is supplied?

Where's your evidence?

Ad infinitum ad nauseum . . .

Why? Because you can’t present a blow-by-blow rebut! Marriage as approved by the biblical God is not nearly as sugar-coated as YOUR group of itching ears want to hear. Far from it!

I can't understand why you go to such fruitless and futile attempts to corruot Christian truth with secular morality. There is no gay marriage anywhere condoned in the Bible.

Unlike, of course, Paul and the other voices that laid down the reality of Christian truth in their apologia (which many paid for with their blood being spilled by members of a society that completely approved of homosexuality) and the founding of the Church.

Not a rebuttal of the item, nor the biblical FACTS about marriage but a typical 99percent red herring.

Jesus may have fed thousands and thousands of people with a few fish, but none were Red Herrings. And neither are my positions.

Let's see:

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

- Jesus matthew 19

Now, only the insane would purport that Jesus means that "a wife" could be a man. Or that a husband could mean a woman.

C'mon KID. You fail on every attempt. Your gay cause here would be better served with honesty. There is no such thing as same gender marriage in the Bibleical worldview.

FACT

And here we have Jesus defining "what" a marriage is: No amount of spin can change the clear and immutable meaning of His words. Of course, humans can refuse them or start a heretical club to redefine them, but the definition of Christian history is something that can't be ignored:

“Haven’t you read,� he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’

- Jesus called Christ

Once again ...Jesus was responding to a question about divorce and aimed that response toward those who are already married and considering divorce. You have no ethical reason to keep on offering up that text to limit marriage to male and female or, indeed, to equate it to homosexuality at all. Had the question about divorce not been brought up then Jesus would not have had cause to bring up the topic in the first place.

You can't be serious?

IN CONTEXT the definition of WHAT a marriage is and always was is plain and simple!!!

There is no ethical nature in claiming that marriage can be same gender. The entire witness of the Bible agrees with that FACT.

The reason you DO keep bringing up that text IS, of course, because Jesus never said ONE WORD about homosexuality and so you have to invent a connection to the subject of homosexuality where no connection actually exists.

Jesus was an orthodox Jew. he continually referenced the tanakh (Old Testament). He would more than likely being looking at a Septuagint. IN THAT, homosexuality is an abomination.

YOU are casting the red herring across our debate trail. A trail that only can lead to one definition of marriage: Man and woman. FACT.

I keep bringing it precisely because Jesus NEVER mentioned homosexuals.

It's an absurd position to argue support from silence. Especially since the New Testament witness does not support the gay pride movement anywhere or at anytime.

Fact.

I realize how frustrating it must be for you and yours that the ICON of Christianity – Jesus Christ Himself - NOWHERE supports your/their anti-gay stance.

The only thing that is frustrating is dealing with false teachings and false teachers claiming the gay sex acts are acceptable for Christians in The Chuch. The New Testament record shows their positions as lies.

Fact.

And, since this topic has led to such outcry and division within the modern Christian Church, one would SURELY expect that Jesus would have raised the subject IF it were to become an issue.

He taught that there would be not just division, but people walking away from the faith. The testimony of the New Testament confirms that reality. Gay pride exists outside of the faith.

Fact.

But, He didn’t. All you have is a text (recorded and written by a third person anyway) that addresses a question about divorce that YOU have deceitfully interpreted as a blanket ban on homosexuality.

It's so wierd watching these twisting machinations of your positions. A blanket ban on homosexuality came long before Jesus preached in Jerusalem Roman Judea.

And the fact that Jesus brought the Genesis couple into the Gospel totally destroys the gay activism ploy that marriage can be same gender.

Fact.

You don't even address the actual INTENT of the quote ...i.e. no divorce. That’s dishonest, 99percent, and you – and most of the rest of us - know this.

We've been over this probably a hundred times. THIS THREAD is about the gay group being ethical and taking their different Gospel to other locations and preaching and teaching it where they want to. It is not honesty to ply gay pride in Bible-affirming Churches.

In fact, celibacy testifies against your move KID and GC101's. It wasn't a redefining of marriage that was offered to The Church sir.

There is not one mention of the support of same gender marriage anywhere in New Testament theology. In fact the opposite can be found. You seem to be forgetting that.

I’m not forgetting anything. I don’t care what a book states or, more to the point, what it doesn’t state …

Then you have no ethical leg to stand on. You can't (or shouldn't I guess) try to use the Bible to prove your gay case and then ridicule the Bible as worthless at the same time.

Dude, do you see anywhere in my positions that you can't do your gay thing in your gay places? I don't care what adults do with or to each other. Just don't p-ss down my back and tell me it's raining.

. . . as long as it’s being used to diminish and demean another human being.

Make that charge and I'll report you for a personal insult. Including the bizaare charge made by some gay activist groups that we are guilty of spiritual hate. That's a lie.

I could charge you with trying to make Bible-affirming Christians all renounce their faith by forcing them to submit to a heretical power. Schsim is BROUGHT to The Church by gay pride. Not the other way around.

Do your secular thing where it fits. That's my only position on gay behavior. Go read Brown Vs. Texas. I agree with that ruling and I am an Evangelical Christian.
What people want to do in their bodoies sexually in their own house should be up to them. Just don't come to my Church or Christians and say we have to cheer you on, or we are hateful.

Any such texts should either be rejected or re-examined …probably the latter.

Reject to your hearts content pal. That is of no concern to me or any other Christian in history.

Do as thou wilt.

And, the Bible IS merely a book (no disrespect intended …just stating a fact)

No you are not. You are stating a position that is wrong. "The Bible" is 66-books compiled. That is why "bible." The Catholic "bible" has some more books compiled from the Apocrypha.

that you and others have made into a religious icon. Remember ‘Thou shalt have no idols’?

Like a Rainbow Colored flag? Something like that? You ahve presented the will of man as a substitution fro scripture. THAT could be defined as idol.

Clearly, the Bible is your idol and you allow your misinterpretations of it to control your thinking. By dwelling solely on the ‘nasty’ parts of the Bible – as you perceive them anyway – and singling out those YOU don’t like with ‘Godly’ condemnation speaks volumes about 99percentatheism and his bigoted mindset.

Your personal attack will not be reported because I need your posts to dismantle the gay pride demands to rule over the Church.

You resort to ad hom because my positions are so solidly based in reality that your frustration cannot be hidden. But KID, YOU CAN ply your theological and sexual ways in any Church you find agree with that.

Why must you force us to let you have your ways over us? To have us celebrate and condone behaviors that we claerly have the honesty and rights to see as inappropriate?

Here:

“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.

Does that not sound familiar?

And the Christians that authored the many New Testament letters and Godpels, without any shadow of a doubt, portray the reality of Jesus's teaching on what a marriage is.

If you REALLY felt that strongly about God’s plan for marriage then you would be aiming that text at those thousands of divorced and re-married people who sit in the pews of most Christian Churches …those for whom that scripture WAS INTENDED!! But, you don’t. You instead aim it at homosexuals which, when taken in context, makes no sense at all. You are anti-gay but, obviously, not anti-divorce. Why?

Your cut and paste comebacks are laughable.

You only prove that gay marriage is wrong too.

Now, like the OP presents, homosexuals and their allies can do what they wilt, but they have no support from the New Testament for doing so. Pop culture has never trumped the Christian orthodoxy as detailed in the New testament. No matter how loud the changes are demanded by a new group selling a spinoff agenda.

The only objection from the NT pertaining to homosexuality (and heterosexuality for that matter) is that sexual activity not be performed ritually in the church setting to false idols. While some of the present Charismatic Churches border on pagan worship practices (and how!) I don’t yet recall having witnessed any fertility-type acts being performed to appease false idols. Perhaps that's the next fad. So, unless such lewd sexual practices are performed by ‘gays’ or ‘straights’ during worship service then there is no NT prohibition that I'm aware of with regard to one’s sexuality and their attending a church of their choice.

You can preach that stuff in your own seperate places. That nonsense will not fly anywhere that the Bible is respected. Which, by the way, you have repeatedly denigrated. So why do you use a wierd rendition of the Bible to try to drum up support for gay nehavior?

It's kid of silly watching you go through the motions you do. What do you think you will end up with?

A Church built on the softness of a mattres and certainly not the rock of ages.

Now, on your game board where you invent a new way of playing Chess, one where the pieces can move as they are not intended . . . (eh-hem), you won't achieve an end there either because any pop culture can change the rules if they don't like the ones set down.

There are modern ‘rules’ with regard to whom one is sexually attracted? There are modern ‘rules’ with regard to whom one wishes to commit their lives? Really?

hello??? A little consistency please. YOU demand that adultery and divorce and remarriage are immutable truths. Now you demand ambiguity?

Please get it straight huh? (No pun intended.)

As per my previous post, your ‘sugar-coated’ version of the relationship between man and woman is pretty well shot down in flames when it comes to how the biblical God views marriage.

Huh? NOT according to Jesus. GOD never changed a thing.

Hint, hint?

Do I need yet another re-posting of what Jesus said God said about marriage "in the beginning" that Jesus REAFFORMED?

Your positions are defeated every single time KID. Let's end this debate and you go off to console your pals in your very own expression of whatever you want to express.

Even in the ‘best case’ scenarios of marriage, marriage simply meant that the female became the property of the male. You DO know that, do you not?

Show that from the reference preached by Jesus.

So, don’t be glorifying marriage biblically since, if the truth be known, it would likely have been ‘hell’ for the woman for the most part.

Read Song Of Songs and get back to me. Looks like the betrothed couldn't find more joy . . .

But then, she was under the thumb of the male (and God!) so she wouldn’t have had the right to complain! Culturally speaking, she was probably even content to be used as a baby-making door mat since she wouldn't have known differently. Today we DO know differently!

Do you really think that silly progressive rant has merit?

Looks to me that the biggest loser in the feminist movement in regards to marriage is unwed mothers.

Millions and millions and millions on the social welfare programs while theri children end up in prison, mental health instutions or the morgue.

Look, let me tell you something very, very, very important about the Bible. It demands that the widow and the orphan be taken care of. It could be said to be the theme of the Bible. Now, the sickening thing to me, is that a liberal and progressive morality MAKES widows and orphans . . . BUT, at least tries to fumble about and take care of them. But of course the end result of secular morality is godless and the results are bad. More and more unwed mothers and neglected children.

Oh, 99percent . . .what are we to do with you ...?

That's just creepy to think about. And I'm not renouncing Christ for you or any other secular deamnd.

Actually the game you are playing, is the embracng of chaos and that of course makes for DAH DAH DAH DAHHHHHHHH . . . anything goes.

Um . . .feel better for having gotten that out of your system ...? For a moment I thought you might be having a heart attack.

No such luck. I'm stuck in this world of yours where chaos and immorality is growing stronger every day.

On the honest board, you would be disqualified for going against the truth of how things were set out "at the formation of the game" and would have to do things right. Or leave the game. But the game you are playing, where emotionalism, selfishness, self-centeredness, anger and lust change the rules whenever they get in the way, you couldn't even come to a definition for check mate there either. Because, whenever someone doesn't like to have to face reality, they just get to redefine the tuth of it for how they feel at any given moment in history.

The New Testament record does not allow for the game you want to play. Nor does it approve of the new rules you present to invent a new one.

Check Mate?

That was declared against your move and the thousands like it that have popped up in Church history, around 2000-years ago.

I just recognize the Truth KID. I didn't invent it.

You can’t handle the truth (apologies to Mr. Nicholson) because the truth clearly goes against your anti-gay stance.

Well you can make that charge but you can't condemn me. I am innocent of your spuriousness.

[color]The truth is that you have no biblical grounds on which to discriminate against specific people and your suggestion that they start their own Christian denomination is made simply because you don’t like them. I have provided enough evidence throughout this long thread that ALL references to homosexuality in the Bible are limited to temple prostitution and idol worship practices.[color][/quote]

You have regurgitated the offerings of activists. Nothing more.

IF God, Paul, et al are/were against people making a choice based on their sexual orientation to partner with whomever they choose …we don’t know since the Bible does not address this. Temple prostitution and idol worship practices have NOTHING to do with the modern subject of homosexuality. You know that and yet you are unwilling to acknowledge the biblical truth.

If I was allowed to post images from gay websites compared to Evangelical Christian organizations, the term "Idol Worship" would blast off the screen from the gay world and worldview.

So, I’m going to take a shot here and charge you officially with bigotry. You have no Bible support to malign a group of people with a specific sexual orientation, in fact, you glaring misuse the scriptures simply to bolster your campaign of hate. Are you a bigot as charged, 99percent?

Yawn.

Is that it? That's all you got at the end of the day? A petty charge brought about by tantrum?

Or I guets it could be actual insult and threat?

Let's see what I should expect:

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.

- John 17

For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry.

They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you.

But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.

- 1 Peter 4

This thread follows good Christian advice:

If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler.

However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. For it is time for judgment to begin with God’s household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

The OP presents that Christians not meddle in the affairs of those that desire a different Gospel. Or to live by the flesh. (You should follow that advice. Especially since you do not value the Bible as a guide to how you and others should live. )

Only that we honor Christ with Truth.

KID, you remind me of several parables.

[KCKID]

99percent, I have no intention of responding to your above post point-by-point because much of it contains your typical stratagem of smug religious superiority plus heaps of the usual lashings of rhetoric and red herrings intended only to create the subterfuge that you are known for. Your post is therefore un-addressable.

What I have attempted to do on this thread is to address all of the infamous so-called Bible 'gay clobber texts' and present them in another - and, perhaps even their proper- perspective. Regardless of the in/accuracy of interpretation of these scriptures, none of these texts give you any 'legit' basis whatsoever to 1. demean or stand in judgment of homosexuals or, indeed, any other human being and, 2. suggest that homosexual people are by virtue of their sexuality religiously inferior to yourself and should therefore start their own 'Gay Denomination'. That's two major strikes against you.

What YOU have done is to all but ignore other perspectives of the so-called 'gay clobber texts' in your zeal to promote your own campaign of hate toward a group of people who have no more control over their innate sexuality than do heterosexuals. I stand firm on everything that I've previously presented and I see no reason to continue this pointless 'debate' (?) with you. This doesn't mean that I won't respond in the future as long as you give me something worthy of a response.

It’s become evident over the months that you’re pretty much a one-man band with regard to this topic. I somewhat believe - and HOPE - that you speak for a fringe group of religious bigots in regard to this topic. I also suspect that you are not even truly representative of your own Church tenets with regard to this issue. You've made claims to have such a big following in real life, i.e. you say that others place demands of you to speak on this issue; and yet ...I haven’t so far seen anyone from this purported group come forward to support you. Where are they? Where are the members of your own Church? If they and your band of alleged followers feel so strongly about 'the gay agenda' that is out to destroy Christianity then why are they not here on this forum boldly defending the stance of their leader . . .?

Seems rather cowardly, don't you think?

[99percentatheism]

99percent, I have no intention of responding to your above post point-by-point because much of it contains your typical stratagem of smug religious superiority plus heaps of the usual lashings of rhetoric and red herrings intended only to create the subterfuge that you are known for. Your post is therefore un-addressable.

What I have attempted to do on this thread is to address all of the infamous so-called Bible 'gay clobber texts' and present them in another - and, perhaps even their proper- perspective. Regardless of the in/accuracy of interpretation of these scriptures, none of these texts give you any 'legit' basis whatsoever to 1. demean or stand in judgment of homosexuals or, indeed, any other human being and, 2. suggest that homosexual people are by virtue of their sexuality religiously inferior to yourself and should therefore start their own 'Gay Denomination'. That's two major strikes against you.

What YOU have done is to all but ignore other perspectives of the so-called 'gay clobber texts' in your zeal to promote your own campaign of hate toward a group of people who have no more control over their innate sexuality than do heterosexuals. I stand firm on everything that I've previously presented and I see no reason to continue this pointless 'debate' (?) with you. This doesn't mean that I won't respond in the future as long as you give me something worthy of a response.

It’s become evident over the months that you’re pretty much a one-man band with regard to this topic. I somewhat believe - and HOPE - that you speak for a fringe group of religious bigots in regard to this topic. I also suspect that you are not even truly representative of your own Church tenets with regard to this issue. You've made claims to have such a big following in real life, i.e. you say that others place demands of you to speak on this issue; and yet ...I haven’t so far seen anyone from this purported group come forward to support you. Where are they? Where are the members of your own Church? If they and your band of alleged followers feel so strongly about 'the gay agenda' that is out to destroy Christianity then why are they not here on this forum boldly defending the stance of their leader . . .?

Seems rather cowardly, don't you think?

All that you are left with at the end is vitriol? Here in America the LGBT's were just about exalted by an elected messiah. I would think that since the greatest man that has ever walked earth at his coronation yesterday in Washington DC would have you sparkling with glee.

There's your idol worhip KID. In living color.

You can believe as you like. But I've noticed that you have insulted and denigrated the Bible with all of those so-called pro-homosexuality texts you proclaim so highly as much as you have attacked me personally over and over again. Discard the Bible to make your life worthwhile. That is no concern of mine.

My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

- James 4

[KCKID]

99percent, I have no intention of responding to your above post point-by-point because much of it contains your typical stratagem of smug religious superiority plus heaps of the usual lashings of rhetoric and red herrings intended only to create the subterfuge that you are known for. Your post is therefore un-addressable.

What I have attempted to do on this thread is to address all of the infamous so-called Bible 'gay clobber texts' and present them in another - and, perhaps even their proper- perspective. Regardless of the in/accuracy of interpretation of these scriptures, none of these texts give you any 'legit' basis whatsoever to 1. demean or stand in judgment of homosexuals or, indeed, any other human being and, 2. suggest that homosexual people are by virtue of their sexuality religiously inferior to yourself and should therefore start their own 'Gay Denomination'. That's two major strikes against you.

What YOU have done is to all but ignore other perspectives of the so-called 'gay clobber texts' in your zeal to promote your own campaign of hate toward a group of people who have no more control over their innate sexuality than do heterosexuals. I stand firm on everything that I've previously presented and I see no reason to continue this pointless 'debate' (?) with you. This doesn't mean that I won't respond in the future as long as you give me something worthy of a response.

It’s become evident over the months that you’re pretty much a one-man band with regard to this topic. I somewhat believe - and HOPE - that you speak for a fringe group of religious bigots in regard to this topic. I also suspect that you are not even truly representative of your own Church tenets with regard to this issue. You've made claims to have such a big following in real life, i.e. you say that others place demands of you to speak on this issue; and yet ...I haven’t so far seen anyone from this purported group come forward to support you. Where are they? Where are the members of your own Church? If they and your band of alleged followers feel so strongly about 'the gay agenda' that is out to destroy Christianity then why are they not here on this forum boldly defending the stance of their leader . . .?

Seems rather cowardly, don't you think?

All that you are left with at the end is vitriol?

No vitriol, just wondering where your band of supporters are.

Here in America the LGBT's were just about exalted by an elected messiah. I would think that since the greatest man that has ever walked earth at his coronation yesterday in Washington DC would have you sparkling with glee.

I don't live in America. I live in Australia. However, I DO kinda like Obama and I believe that whatever he does he does with sincerity and with the nation's best interests at heart. I hardly think that the GLBT's have been exalted to a status greater than the heterosexual population. It seems to me that it's all about equality and nothing more.

There's your idol worhip KID. In living color.

Yeah . . .

You can believe as you like. But I've noticed that you have insulted and denigrated the Bible with all of those so-called pro-homosexuality texts you proclaim so highly as much as you have attacked me personally over and over again. Discard the Bible to make your life worthwhile. That is no concern of mine.

I've done no such thing as having insulted and denigrated the Bible. And, there are no such things as 'pro-homosexual' biblical texts. There ARE, however, alternative interpretations of certain scriptures that are based on FACTS as opposed to relatively recent translations designed specifically to target a group of people that some Christians simply don't like.

By the way, how can the promoting of acceptance and harmony and brotherhood be seen to be 'discarding the Bible'?

My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

- James 4

Have you never considered that it might be YOU who is the 'wanderer from the truth'?

[KCKID]

Since this particular thread appears to have all but run its course I was going to open a new thread entitled “Exorcism of the Demon of Homosexuality�. I will, however, present the below three YouTube videos, parts 1, 2 and 3 (totalling about 28 minutes), on this thread in the hope of getting some feedback from others on the forum as well as from the thread's author, 99percentatheism. I will specifically ask 99percent if he believes that homosexuality IS a form of demon possession and, if so, does he support the so-called exorcism of these alleged demons by the likes of evangelist Bob Larson? Would you, 99percent, welcome such a person, exorcised and now free from the demon of homosexuality, into your particular Church? What kind of evidence would you require that this person is indeed free from the ungodly wiles of this demon before they would not be required by you to start their own denomination?

Personally, I find these videos to be not only disturbing but also to be an insult to the intelligence.

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3