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]

exploittheworld:

A new gay denomination is unnecessary...

It's not only necessary, but it is the decent and civil thing to do. If decency and civility is even desired. Gay culture is antithetical to Christian truth.

No one has been given or possesses absolute authority to judge or condemn what God has created, but God himself.

There's no idication that "anything goes" is proscribed in the Bible. And marriage is immutably man and woman everywhere it is written about in the NT.

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.

Yes. We are not mindless dolls. Behaviors denote much to a person's inner core. Repentance is something that gay demands simply discard. Except demanding that anyone opposing the insertion of pagan sexual behaviors into Christian life are wrong for that opposition. Same gender "marriage" exists in the world and not in the Church desribed in the New Testament. There is no denying that if reality is important.

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.

You must have written your own Bible. Which of course you have a right to do, but it is our right to reject the permissiveness in your religious views.

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.

Huh?

There is no place for hate in heaven so why do it here, it does no good, but divides us.

Dividing "us" is the deal. Have you never read the New Testament?

It's not necessarily easy for anyone involved, but to love does more good than to hate.

That sounds like a wierd sexualized cult's brainwashing mantra. If you read the Gospels, it is more like hate to promote sin and sinners to stay in there sins. There is no love in patting someone on the back as they choose sin and to stay in those sins.

I'll be back later with the scripture references to support that the idea of "love" is NOT championing sinners to proclaim their sins are civil rights that must be forced on Christians.

But here's a glimpse:

As a result, they do not live the rest of their earthly lives for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. 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. For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

- 1 Peter 4

So your premise that Christians are to be no different than the worldy and the secular seems to be opposed by Peter.

Now, if you can find ANY scriptures that clearly celebrates and supports the homosexualization of the Church, inclusing defining a marriage as between people of the same gender . . . please provide them.

Otherwise, please see the logic for the creation of the gay denomination. Since as you will see, the gay agenda does not fit Christian life based on the teachings from the voices in the New Testament. (Rather, it does though, historically, fit the lifestyle of Nero and his sexual pals.) Clear demarcation is usually a good thing for honesty's sake. For "love's" sake.

[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?

Religions use dictionaries?

Yes it's one of those etchasketch thingy's. That way they can change word meanings for any given situation as they do. Surely you knew that?

[Allahakbar]

exploittheworld:

A new gay denomination is unnecessary...

It's not only necessary, but it is the decent and civil thing to do. If decency and civility is even desired. Gay culture is antithetical to Christian truth.
Being gay is LOVING someone of your own gender and doesn't preclude loving someone of the opposite gender, a daughter for instance. You are making a claim that LOVE is antithetical to CHRISTS teachings. You need to read the NT. Because you are wrong.

No one has been given or possesses absolute authority to judge or condemn what God has created, but God himself.

There's no idication that "anything goes" is proscribed in the Bible. And marriage is immutably man and woman everywhere it is written about in the NT.
There is nothing in the NT that prohibits marriage between same gender individuals. If there was the bigots would have a slam dunk within their alleged christian community. They use one unrelated passage to imply that their bigotry is Jesus given. How sad.

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.

Yes. We are not mindless dolls. Behaviors denote much to a person's inner core. Repentance is something that gay demands simply discard. Except demanding that anyone opposing the insertion of pagan sexual behaviors into Christian life are wrong for that opposition. Same gender "marriage" exists in the world and not in the Church desribed in the New Testament. There is no denying that if reality is important.see above

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.

You must have written your own Bible. Which of course you have a right to do, but it is our right to reject the permissiveness in your religious views.
Every biblical christian writes his/her own bible. The NT says nothing about same gender marriage, those verses only exist in the bigots brain. His/her own personally written bible.

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.

Huh?

There is no place for hate in heaven so why do it here, it does no good, but divides us.

Dividing "us" is the deal. Have you never read the New Testament? Not a good question given your misinformation I would have thought

It's not necessarily easy for anyone involved, but to love does more good than to hate.

That sounds like a wierd sexualized cult's brainwashing mantra. If you read the Gospels, it is more like hate to promote sin and sinners to stay in there sins. There is no love in patting someone on the back as they choose sin and to stay in those sins. Yes you are absolutely correct about the mantra of a weird cult. It is the mantra of some fella called Jesus (sicko) and they call themselves christians. Stay well away from them and their teaching of LOVE (degenerates)

I'll be back later with the scripture references to support that the idea of "love" is NOT championing sinners to proclaim their sins are civil rights that must be forced on Christians.

But here's a glimpse:

As a result, they do not live the rest of their earthly lives for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. 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. For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

- 1 Peter 4

So your premise that Christians are to be no different than the worldy and the secular seems to be opposed by Peter.What is it you think Peter wrote?

Now, if you can find ANY scriptures that clearly celebrates and supports the homosexualization of the Church, inclusing defining a marriage as between people of the same gender . . . please provide them. Are lies allowed in your belief system? Do you have a list of people who are attempting to homosexualise your little church?

Otherwise, please see the logic for the creation of the gay denomination. Since as you will see, the gay agenda does not fit Christian life based on the teachings from the voices in the New Testament. (Rather, it does though, historically, fit the lifestyle of Nero and his sexual pals.) Clear demarcation is usually a good thing for honesty's sake. For "love's" sake.

Of course any adherents of a schism follow an agenda that does not fit a christian based life based on the teachings of Jesus. ie all "christian" organizations not catholic.

[A Troubled Man]

Yes it's one of those etchasketch thingy's. That way they can change word meanings for any given situation as they do. Surely you knew that?

I was under the impression they never used dictionaries and basically gave meanings to words to suit their agendas.

[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.

Here, let's try that again:

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.

And by the way, I don't use a BB's. I use apologetics.

[Allahakbar]

[Replying to post 1793 by 99percentatheism]

My contention was and is that the NT says nothing about homosexual marriage, it neither supports nor opposes it. You on the other hand claim some fanciful opposition exists.

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 1793 by 99percentatheism]

My contention was and is that the NT says nothing about homosexual marriage, it neither supports nor opposes it. You on the other hand claim some fanciful opposition exists.

I don't think it's 'the marriage' part of a homosexual union that irks 99percent so much as his imaginings as to what the gay married couple do with each other when intimate. I have no idea why any of us should be concerned about what two adults might be doing in private but it's THIS - I believe - that offends 99percent so. That said, why one should be excluded from a mainstream Christian Church because a member or two of that congregation choose to imagine the sex play going on between either a gay or straight couple is somewhat creepy. Either way, it's no one elses business.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 1793 by 99percentatheism]

My contention was and is that the NT says nothing about homosexual marriage, it neither supports nor opposes it. You on the other hand claim some fanciful opposition exists.

S T O P

When those letters are used as a word on signs on public streets and roads . . .

what does it mean?

Your logic seems to imply that it can mean anything someone wants it to because no one ever said that you couldn't avoid its immutable meaning because someone may feel it doesn't always mean what it means. No where in the law does it say that you can't change the word for pop culture feelings. AND, in fact, the "California Stop" makes the case.

But how many Californians and visitors to California get moving violations for "running a Stop Sign."

You know the story right?

A guy runs a stop sign and gets pulled over by a Cop.

The cop says: "You ran the Stop sign sir and I am issuing you a citation."

"What do you mean? I slowed way down," said the driver. "What's the difference?" he continued.

At which point the police Officer went back to her car and came back with a Baton and started striking the driver rapidly.

"Sir, do you want me to slow way down or stop," The Cop said.

[Allahakbar]

[Replying to post 1793 by 99percentatheism]

My contention was and is that the NT says nothing about homosexual marriage, it neither supports nor opposes it. You on the other hand claim some fanciful opposition exists.

S T O P

When those letters are used as a word on signs on public streets and roads . . .

what does it mean?

Your logic seems to imply that it can mean anything someone wants it to because no one ever said that you couldn't avoid its immutable meaning because someone may feel it doesn't always mean what it means. No where in the law does it say that you can't change the word for pop culture feelings. AND, in fact, the "California Stop" makes the case.

But how many Californians and visitors to California get moving violations for "running a Stop Sign."

You know the story right?

A guy runs a stop sign and gets pulled over by a Cop.

The cop says: "You ran the Stop sign sir and I am issuing you a citation."

"What do you mean? I slowed way down," said the driver. "What's the difference?" he continued.

At which point the police Officer went back to her car and came back with a Baton and started striking the driver rapidly.

"Sir, do you want me to slow way down or stop," The Cop said.

Got some bad weed I think.

My contention was and is that the NT says nothing about homosexual marriage, it neither supports nor opposes it. You on the other hand claim some fanciful opposition exists.

[99percentatheism]

KCKID

[Replying to post 1793 by 99percentatheism]

My contention was and is that the NT says nothing about homosexual marriage, it neither supports nor opposes it. You on the other hand claim some fanciful opposition exists.

I don't think it's 'the marriage' part of a homosexual union that irks 99percent so much as his imaginings as to what the gay married couple do with each other when intimate.

While I simply marvel at the personal nature of your posts and your incessant desire to personally attack me over and over again . . . are you saying that the very nature of marriage ESPECIALLY IN THE BIBLE AND CHRISTIANITY . . . is not about sexual behavior? I mean, that is purely the issue of the arangement in Christian theology. Otherwise, "civil unions" would suffice for the gay activists.

Do you need even more scriptures supporting that position?

I have no idea why any of us should be concerned about what two adults might be doing in private but it's THIS - I believe - that offends 99percent so.

False teachers and false teachings are the issue as well as, the equaling of homosexuality with appropriate sexual behavior. You can't possibly be unaware of this.

That said, why one should be excluded from a mainstream Christian Church because a member or two of that congregation choose to imagine the sex play going on between either a gay or straight couple is somewhat creepy.

Either way, it's no one elses business.

That is a theologically, historically and morally, a misguided position you offer up for consumption KID. But, as the OP describes, in your new religion you can define marriage as an impassionate business arrangement all you want to. But not even your gay pals would support you there. They want their "sexual orientation" and its resultuing behaviors affirmed, celebrated and solemnized.

And that can only be attained in an altogether different religion or religious expression from that of the one delivered only once to the saints.

Here ya go:

It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister. The Lord will punish all those who commit such sins, as we told you and warned you before. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life.

- Paul to the Christians in Thessalonica 1 Thess 4

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? ...

- Paul to Timothy: 1 Tim 3

Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

- Paul to Christians in Ephesus: Eph 5

If anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

- Paul to Titus: Titus 1

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her . . .

- Paul to Christians in Ephesus: E 5

Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons . . .

- Paul to Christians at Phillipi: 1 P 1

Etc', etc..

There is no such thing as same gender marriage in the New Testament. There isn't even a basis for the claim that there is silence on altering the definition of marriage in the New Testament.