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]

Allahakbar

JohnPaul:
I am not religious, not Mormon, and not gay, but I think you got a little carried away here. I don't think Joseph Smith asked anybody to change their religion to accomodate him.

He created a new religion for himself and his followers.

Why don't gays stop whining and get off their butts to do the same?

I am sure if they did not include "Tea Party" in their name, they could get tax-exempt status, and could even ask a few rich gays to put their money where their mouth is and build impressive Temples in which only gays would be allowed to be married. What a concept! Do something for themselves instead of whining to the government.

It is intersting that even though the redefinition is completely a secular task, there seems a need, an insatiable drive, to have the Evangelical Church forced to accept same gender marriage.

Why? The right to form a new religious movement - like JohnPaul so rightly sees - is all the LGBT "community" needs to do, if they want a religious aspect to their sex acts.

Yeah then they can call you heretics like you do to the religions you broke away from, yay. Of course they still get to claim christianity like your lot do!

I wouldn't know. I, like most standard Christians, follow the same Gospel that Peter and Jude did.

You do notice that Bible-believing Christians, do not get sued by Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses for our refusual to support them right? Nor do those groups that formed their own religious orgs call us bigots, hateful or any other propagandist accusation.

Peter and Jude were dead before the bible existed, strike one.

They both had a Bible on their night stands.

hahahahaha.......do you know when the bible was compiled? Are you for real? Do you actually know nothing about this bible you so worship? You are hilarious! Before 325CE there was no BIBLE. YOU base your worship on a document created by the CATHOLICS. No-one else............. those catholics you so hate.

They were both Jews. Now, if you mean a copy of the printed New Testament,

are you now claiming as a BIBLE BELIEVING christian that the new testament is the bible? You are just getting funnier! You don't even understand what this book that you claim you are a believer in IS. oh dear

that does not alter their orthodoxy. And Jude, he even had a copy of the Book of Enoch.

It was a fould ball and certainly not a swing and miss kind of strike. But nice try pal.

You did notice my sig regarding bible believing christians did you?

You quote a common atheist and what, that means something to me? I need to yawn.

I quote intelligence and you quote ignorance.
You quote the book of catholicism, how funny is that. It's even funnier than that, you claim that you are a follower of the TRUE bible, a bible that you think precedes the real bible, the only bible, the first ever bible, the bible compiled under the inspiration of god. That is the bible you base your quotes on and then claim that your bible was compiled before the bible you use. Apparently by mystical unknown and unnamed beings.
Oh dear, you are funny.

This is why I am so unafraid to debate your kind. Your message is always relagated to hysteria and cliche and of course the incessant tactic of debating your own strawman when you find a person unwilling to become like you.

Your side uses that New Testament too you know. They use it to try to prove their case for homosexuality and homosexuals. Now, I would rather that they discard it as you do and that tactic, because it is just ludicrous, or worse. But, this IS about what is written in the New Testament.

Now, if you can manage it, step out of your comfort zone and compare the words in a printed New Testament of ANY version . . . and try to prove that same gender marriage can be found supported OR supportable ANYWHERE in the pages of that compilation of writings. That is an honest request.

Once you find that task totally impossible, please just agree with the OP. No need to bash and bully, just shake hands and go your way.

[Allahakbar]

Allahakbar

JohnPaul:
I am not religious, not Mormon, and not gay, but I think you got a little carried away here. I don't think Joseph Smith asked anybody to change their religion to accomodate him.

He created a new religion for himself and his followers.

Why don't gays stop whining and get off their butts to do the same?

I am sure if they did not include "Tea Party" in their name, they could get tax-exempt status, and could even ask a few rich gays to put their money where their mouth is and build impressive Temples in which only gays would be allowed to be married. What a concept! Do something for themselves instead of whining to the government.

It is intersting that even though the redefinition is completely a secular task, there seems a need, an insatiable drive, to have the Evangelical Church forced to accept same gender marriage.

Why? The right to form a new religious movement - like JohnPaul so rightly sees - is all the LGBT "community" needs to do, if they want a religious aspect to their sex acts.

Yeah then they can call you heretics like you do to the religions you broke away from, yay. Of course they still get to claim christianity like your lot do!

I wouldn't know. I, like most standard Christians, follow the same Gospel that Peter and Jude did.

You do notice that Bible-believing Christians, do not get sued by Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses for our refusual to support them right? Nor do those groups that formed their own religious orgs call us bigots, hateful or any other propagandist accusation.

Peter and Jude were dead before the bible existed, strike one.

They both had a Bible on their night stands.

hahahahaha.......do you know when the bible was compiled? Are you for real? Do you actually know nothing about this bible you so worship? You are hilarious! Before 325CE there was no BIBLE. YOU base your worship on a document created by the CATHOLICS. No-one else............. those catholics you so hate.

They were both Jews. Now, if you mean a copy of the printed New Testament,

are you now claiming as a BIBLE BELIEVING christian that the new testament is the bible? You are just getting funnier! You don't even understand what this book that you claim you are a believer in IS. oh dear

that does not alter their orthodoxy. And Jude, he even had a copy of the Book of Enoch.

It was a fould ball and certainly not a swing and miss kind of strike. But nice try pal.

You did notice my sig regarding bible believing christians did you?

You quote a common atheist and what, that means something to me? I need to yawn.

I quote intelligence and you quote ignorance.
You quote the book of catholicism, how funny is that. It's even funnier than that, you claim that you are a follower of the TRUE bible, a bible that you think precedes the real bible, the only bible, the first ever bible, the bible compiled under the inspiration of god. That is the bible you base your quotes on and then claim that your bible was compiled before the bible you use. Apparently by mystical unknown and unnamed beings.
Oh dear, you are funny.

This is why I am so unafraid to debate your kind. Your message is always relagated to hysteria and cliche and of course the incessant tactic of debating your own strawman when you find a person unwilling to become like you.

Your side uses that New Testament too you know. They use it to try to prove their case for homosexuality and homosexuals. Now, I would rather that they discard it as you do and that tactic, because it is just ludicrous, or worse. But, this IS about what is written in the New Testament.

Now, if you can manage it, step out of your comfort zone and compare the words in a printed New Testament of ANY version . . . and try to prove that same gender marriage can be found supported OR supportable ANYWHERE in the pages of that compilation of writings. That is an honest request.

Once you find that task totally impossible, please just agree with the OP. No need to bash and bully, just shake hands and go your way.

Are you NOW saying that I am right concerning this holybook you base your life on or are you still trying to F homosexuals. Cos sweety your last post didn't respond to the post of mine that you referenced.
Is that a big oops, nah just normal BB tactics.

[99percentatheism]

Allahakbar

JohnPaul:
I am not religious, not Mormon, and not gay, but I think you got a little carried away here. I don't think Joseph Smith asked anybody to change their religion to accomodate him.

He created a new religion for himself and his followers.

Why don't gays stop whining and get off their butts to do the same?

I am sure if they did not include "Tea Party" in their name, they could get tax-exempt status, and could even ask a few rich gays to put their money where their mouth is and build impressive Temples in which only gays would be allowed to be married. What a concept! Do something for themselves instead of whining to the government.

It is intersting that even though the redefinition is completely a secular task, there seems a need, an insatiable drive, to have the Evangelical Church forced to accept same gender marriage.

Why? The right to form a new religious movement - like JohnPaul so rightly sees - is all the LGBT "community" needs to do, if they want a religious aspect to their sex acts.

Yeah then they can call you heretics like you do to the religions you broke away from, yay. Of course they still get to claim christianity like your lot do!

I wouldn't know. I, like most standard Christians, follow the same Gospel that Peter and Jude did.

You do notice that Bible-believing Christians, do not get sued by Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses for our refusual to support them right? Nor do those groups that formed their own religious orgs call us bigots, hateful or any other propagandist accusation.

Peter and Jude were dead before the bible existed, strike one.

They both had a Bible on their night stands.

hahahahaha.......do you know when the bible was compiled? Are you for real? Do you actually know nothing about this bible you so worship? You are hilarious! Before 325CE there was no BIBLE. YOU base your worship on a document created by the CATHOLICS. No-one else............. those catholics you so hate.

They were both Jews. Now, if you mean a copy of the printed New Testament,

are you now claiming as a BIBLE BELIEVING christian that the new testament is the bible? You are just getting funnier! You don't even understand what this book that you claim you are a believer in IS. oh dear

that does not alter their orthodoxy. And Jude, he even had a copy of the Book of Enoch.

It was a fould ball and certainly not a swing and miss kind of strike. But nice try pal.

You did notice my sig regarding bible believing christians did you?

You quote a common atheist and what, that means something to me? I need to yawn.

I quote intelligence and you quote ignorance.
You quote the book of catholicism, how funny is that. It's even funnier than that, you claim that you are a follower of the TRUE bible, a bible that you think precedes the real bible, the only bible, the first ever bible, the bible compiled under the inspiration of god. That is the bible you base your quotes on and then claim that your bible was compiled before the bible you use. Apparently by mystical unknown and unnamed beings.
Oh dear, you are funny.

This is why I am so unafraid to debate your kind. Your message is always relagated to hysteria and cliche and of course the incessant tactic of debating your own strawman when you find a person unwilling to become like you.

Your side uses that New Testament too you know. They use it to try to prove their case for homosexuality and homosexuals. Now, I would rather that they discard it as you do and that tactic, because it is just ludicrous, or worse. But, this IS about what is written in the New Testament.

Now, if you can manage it, step out of your comfort zone and compare the words in a printed New Testament of ANY version . . . and try to prove that same gender marriage can be found supported OR supportable ANYWHERE in the pages of that compilation of writings. That is an honest request.

Once you find that task totally impossible, please just agree with the OP. No need to bash and bully, just shake hands and go your way.

Are you NOW saying that I am right concerning this holybook you base your life on or are you still trying to F homosexuals. Cos sweety your last post didn't respond to the post of mine that you referenced.
Is that a big oops, nah just normal BB tactics.

More like a problem dealing with the homogenized nature of the non and anti Christians that claim they are so diverse, tolerant and progressive that you can't tell one from another. Like lemmings marching off to doom, it's hard to tell one from another since they are all exactly the same.

[Allahakbar]

[Replying to post 1781 by 99percentatheism]

Now 99, what happened to that bible that you believe in that came before the catholic bible that you use? Is that the bible that the muslims claim to have?

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 1781 by 99percentatheism]

Now 99, what happened to that bible that you believe in that came before the catholic bible that you use? Is that the bible that the muslims claim to have?

Use any of them you want to, or none of them and you will see that there is no such thing as same gender marriage from "the Bible" Old or New testament versions before or after it/they was/were compiled.

Your line of argument here is empty of substance.

But I will say it is more original than most of what the gay activists come up with here.

[Allahakbar]

[Replying to post 1781 by 99percentatheism]

Now 99, what happened to that bible that you believe in that came before the catholic bible that you use? Is that the bible that the muslims claim to have?

Use any of them you want to, or none of them and you will see that there is no such thing as same gender marriage from "the Bible" Old or New testament versions before or after it/they was/were compiled.

Your line of argument here is empty of substance.

But I will say it is more original than most of what the gay activists come up with here.

Now how could I use any that I want against the one that you possess that was compiled before the bible was compiled? Are you being disingenuous?
Here:

JohnPaul:
I am not religious, not Mormon, and not gay, but I think you got a little carried away here. I don't think Joseph Smith asked anybody to change their religion to accomodate him.

He created a new religion for himself and his followers.

Why don't gays stop whining and get off their butts to do the same?

I am sure if they did not include "Tea Party" in their name, they could get tax-exempt status, and could even ask a few rich gays to put their money where their mouth is and build impressive Temples in which only gays would be allowed to be married. What a concept! Do something for themselves instead of whining to the government.

It is intersting that even though the redefinition is completely a secular task, there seems a need, an insatiable drive, to have the Evangelical Church forced to accept same gender marriage.

Why? The right to form a new religious movement - like JohnPaul so rightly sees - is all the LGBT "community" needs to do, if they want a religious aspect to their sex acts.

Yeah then they can call you heretics like you do to the religions you broke away from, yay. Of course they still get to claim christianity like your lot do!

I wouldn't know. I, like most standard Christians, follow the same Gospel that Peter and Jude did.

[otseng]

are you still trying to F homosexuals.

Moderator Final Warning

Coded profanity is not permitted on this forum.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Allahakbar]

It's high time the muslim definition of marriage was adopted in the USA, why should just one religion have control over all the definitions in the dictionary?

[A Troubled Man]

It's high time the muslim definition of marriage was adopted in the USA, why should just one religion have control over all the definitions in the dictionary?

Religions use dictionaries?

[exploittheworld]

A new gay denomination is unnecessary...

No one has been given or possesses absolute authority to judge or condemn what God has created, but God himself. For its is said that God created everything and all that God has created is beautiful. So even too are gay people, adulaters, and sinners of all walks of life... they are essentially beautiful since God has made them, but God does not create or control free will and based on the actions and not the actual person, can God judge ones choices. He cannot dislike what he has created, but our choices or decisions are not of his making and thus is giving the ability to judge what he has deemed to be a sin. There cannot be a degree of femininity or masculinity that officially declares someone possesses enough of this certain aspect that now puts one in the category of being a gay person. It is solely by your thoughts and actions that God can judge anything.

There is no place for hate in heaven so why do it here, it does no good, but divides us. It's not necessarily easy for anyone involved, but to love does more good than to hate.