Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

[99percentatheism]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 1043 by 99percentatheism]



99percent, of those 'gay marrieds' that choose to belong to a Christian Church ...what IS this 'sin' that you keep referring to? Please be specific because you're being far too broad here as well as presenting scriptures that are also as broad and don't appear to relate to this particular topic. You should be able to articulate your particular 'problem' with gay marrieds in one sentence if you choose to do so. So, would you do so without all of the additional drama, hysteria and padding?

Please respond to the following:
1. What precisely is it that gay people are doing in the Church that is causing such a threat to your Church . . .?
2. What does what you imagine a homosexual couple might be doing in their bedroom have to do with their effectiveness as a Christian?
3. What does what you imagine a heterosexual couple doing in their bedroom make them more effective Christians than the gay couple?
4. Should not what gay or straight couples might be doing in their bedrooms be off-limits to the Church?

If you need to search through the Bible to find some ambiguous scriptures that have nothing to do with the topic ...please, just tell me that you can't answer the questions in your own words. I'll understand ...really I will . . .

Well, answering your first question is difficult without greater detail. Many gay people, I imagine, attend church without anyone in the church even knowing about their sexual sin. Why exactly is the church even aware of a gay person's sexual sin? Is it a result of confession that church members know about it? Is it a result of gossip? Is the gay person repentant for their sin? Are they trying to turn away from their sins? Are they denying that their sexual sin is even a sin at all? Are they attempting to undermine the moral convictions of the church? What is the message that they are relaying to the children and other members the church? Are they trying to convince the church that being gay is a Godly lifestyle? Are they rejecting the word of God?

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (Mathew 118:15-17)

"Dear brothers and sisters, if another believer is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself." (Galatians 6:1)

"But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part: that I may not overcharge you all. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him." (2 Corinthians: 5-8)

Honestly, a Christian is a follower of Christ. It's hard to follow Christ when you are living in a state of denial regarding your sins. A Christian who is living in such a state of denial is indeed a less effective Christian, that is if they are truly a Christian at all.

When the message is "anything goes as long as it makes you feel good," it is secular in nature and foundation. This is why the Jesus of liberal theology becomes more like a hippy commune free love guru than the Judge of all mankind.

Now why would jesus bother with any judging? You and your lot have taken it upon yourselves to usurp him of that position. Haven't you?

Why would Jesus bother to judge us? Because He said He would.
I am fully capable of making judgments about people. What Scripture calls sin, I can consider sin. Those people who commit acts of sin, I can consider sinners. But I am no man's judge. I do not have the authority to condemn a man.

judge - To pass sentence on; condemn.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/judge

I have chosen this particular definition for the word judge for good reason. It is the obsolete meaning, which in my estimation is most likely the appropriate meaning for the word as it was used 2,000 years ago. Modern definitions just don't apply here.

Jesus said, "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Mathew 7:1-2)

If I should judge that another person is committing a sin, then I should expect God shall judge me in like manner. If I have committed a sin, I should expect God to determine that I have committed a sin. That is not surprising. God knows I sin. I should not be surprised if He should already know that I am a sinner. If I should judge a man and condemn him to death, then I should expect God to judge me for my sins, and condemn me to death.

Please recall the story of the adulteress who was caught in her sin.

"The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?� This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.�
(John 8:3-11)

Here, Jesus is suggesting that a person who has committed no sin would have been perfectly justified in throwing the first stone in order that the woman die for her sins. He is confirming that the woman did indeed deserve to die for the sin she committed.

Here, Jesus is demonstrating to the crowd that the woman did indeed deserve to be put to death for her crime. After all, it was the prescribed punishment according to the Law God gave to Moses. But, He was also trying to demonstrate an even greater concept, which is mercy, and compassion, and also the concept of grace. Surely, the woman deserved death, but we can show compassion for others, because we are much the same, sinners in need of mercy, sinners in need of grace and compassion. That is not to say that we do not, or can not, recognize sin when we see it. But we can certainly sympathize with other sinners because we are in a similar depraved state ourselves.

This crowd was not simply accusing the woman of her crime, they wanted to kill her for her crime. A judge does not simply make an accusation. A judge doesn't just make a declaration of guilt or innocence. A judge passes a sentence. A judge has the authority to condemn people to death. Telling someone that they've done wrong is not judging them. Stoning them to death for their wrong doing is judging them.

Was Jesus suggesting that the adulteress wasn't guilty of a crime? Of course not. Lets continue with the following verses, to see what Jesus had to say to her.

"When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." (John 8:10-11)

Did you see it. He said "go, and sin no more." That seems to me to imply that she indeed did commit the sin that her accusers had accused her of. I wonder if He meant what he said, when he said, "go, and sin no more." Are we to not recognize that she committed sin? Of course not. Should we condemn her for her sins? Well, considering the fact that we shall be judged accordingly, as we judge others, it doesn't seem to me to be a wise thing to do. I am no man's judge. But I make judgments all the time. Discerning the truth is the right thing to do. Admonishing our brothers and sisters to do good is the right thing to do.

[10CC]

Surely, the woman deserved death

Justify this obscenity.

[Sonofason]

Surely, the woman deserved death

Justify this obscenity.

“If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel."
(Deuteronomy 22:22)

[10CC]

Surely, the woman deserved death

Justify this obscenity.

“If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel."
(Deuteronomy 22:22)

NO! I said justify the obscenity not supply the obscene passage that supports it.

Justify it.

[Sonofason]

Surely, the woman deserved death

Justify this obscenity.

“If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel."
(Deuteronomy 22:22)

NO! I said justify the obscenity not supply the obscene passage that supports it.

Justify it.

I'm sorry, I cannot justify the obscenity of adultery.

[KCKID]

Surely, the woman deserved death

Justify this obscenity.

“If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel."
(Deuteronomy 22:22)

NO! I said justify the obscenity not supply the obscene passage that supports it.

Justify it.

I'm sorry, I cannot justify the obscenity of adultery.

You've either missed the point of the question or you're using sarcasm here since adultery was not the obscenity spoken of. That said, the obscenity of adultery is nowhere near the obscenity behind a God who demands the death of an adulterer by stoning. Have you ever seen someone stoned to death? Try YouTube. How Christians can so casually accept this God of cruelty and actually kowtow to Him is beyond me. But, they do casually accept this God of cruelty and actually kowtow to Him.

[unfogged]

[Replying to post 1032 by Stan]

As was later pointed out, the 'homo' prefix in homosexual is from the greek for 'same'. The 'homo' part of 'homo sapiens' is from the latin for 'human'. A claim that 'homosexual' can only apply to 'homo sapiens' because the terms in English are homonyms just does not make sense not matter how you look at it.

So let's unfog the issue shall we?

Christian Marriage is man and woman/husband and wife. There is no such thing as same gender marriage in Christian truth. That is just pure honesty based on Biblical truth.

I'm 99% sure that I didn't argue that point although I'd disagree with calling it "truth" rather than "dogma" or "belief". There aren't different truths.

[KCKID]

KCKID
[Replying to post 1043 by 99percentatheism]

99percent, of those 'gay marrieds' that choose to belong to a Christian Church ...what IS this 'sin' that you keep referring to? Please be specific because you're being far too broad here as well as presenting scriptures that are also as broad and don't appear to relate to this particular topic. You should be able to articulate your particular 'problem' with gay marrieds in one sentence if you choose to do so. So, would you do so without all of the additional drama, hysteria and padding?

Please respond to the following:
1. What precisely is it that gay people are doing in the Church that is causing such a threat to your Church . . .?
2. What does what you imagine a homosexual couple might be doing in their bedroom have to do with their effectiveness as a Christian?
3. What does what you imagine a heterosexual couple doing in their bedroom make them more effective Christians than the gay couple?
4. Should not what gay or straight couples might be doing in their bedrooms be off-limits to the Church?

If you need to search through the Bible to find some ambiguous scriptures that have nothing to do with the topic ...please, just tell me that you can't answer the questions in your own words. I'll understand ...really I will . . .

Ply your subterfuge on someone else. It is your lack of the ability to use scripture in any way to celebrate gay activism that is on display here. You will never be able to use scripture to support the gay agenda and that is why you want the use of scripture disqualified.

And it is clear why.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all.

Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

- Galations 1

Since you choose to refuse to actually answer any of my positions, all I can assume is that you have no answer to orthodoxy other than tricks or of course insults and political neologisms.

All you have to do is to invent another religion and have at your gay agenda all you want. It's a bit unsettling, the demand that gay activism and LGBT political demands be superior to the Christian orthodoxy. Honest Christians desire to follow orthodox truth in honest Christian Churches that see the incompatible nature of LGBT social demands isn't a bad thing. In fact it is just honesty.

But alas, Christians have been through this all before and should realize that there is nothing new under the sun:

. . . I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

- Jude

I asked 4 SPECIFIC questions of 99percentatheism. I asked him to answer the questions in his own words without the usual dramatics, the unnecessary padding and without the use of ambiguous scriptures that have little or nothing to do with the topic. You will notice, dear reader, that he was unable to do so. Since I'm a fair person I'll give him another chance.

1. What precisely is it that gay people are doing in the Church that is causing such a threat to your Church . . .?
2. What does what you imagine a homosexual couple might be doing in their bedroom have to do with their effectiveness as a Christian?
3. What does what you imagine a heterosexual couple doing in their bedroom make them more effective Christians than the gay couple?
4. Should not what gay or straight couples might be doing in their bedrooms be off-limits to the Church?

[unfogged]

[Replying to post 1061 by 99percentatheism]

Well, maybe I have a bit more experience dealing with the cunningness of the gay-debate adversary, but Stan's views that same gender sex acts can only be futile attempts at the real thing is fair and of course accurate.

His science is perfect. Unless of course you can show how mammals are designed to take in sperm via the throat or rectum. And of course same gender "sex" between females is perfectly defined futility.

Two women attempting to copulate can never produce a zygote either.

the solid scientific path that two males cannot really have sexual intercourse.

A penis penatrating the anus and ejaculating into a rectum cannot be "equated" to sexual intercourse. Two females rubbing each other in many different ways to achieve an orgasm isn't the same thing as sexual intercourse either.

Every definition of sexual intercourse that I can find includes both oral and anal penetration. The fact that two males or two females can't produce a zygote is no more relevant than the fact that vaginal intercourse where the man has had a vasectomy or the women a hysterectomy, or where a male and female practice oral or anal sex, can't produce a zygote either. The acts still fall under the umbrella of sexual intercourse.

making of course homosexual behavior driven exclusively by a mind that makes the body do unnatural things.

Given that homosexual behavior has been shown to occur in many species it appears to be a very natural thing. I don't think I could ever participate in such a relationship but then again I am repulsed by the thought of eating most seafood as well. I would never claim that eating oysters is unnatural but it is every bit as unwelcome to me as an offer of a same sex relationship. If either happens I simply decline.

You are equating humans to beasts and worms.

We came from the same evolutionary past and have inherited many of the same basic instincts. Humans are better able to reason and plan and control those instincts than most "beasts" but that doesn't mean we don't share the same heritage or that we always need to suppress them, especially when acting on them is nobody else's business.

[Sonofason]

Surely, the woman deserved death

Justify this obscenity.

“If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel."
(Deuteronomy 22:22)

NO! I said justify the obscenity not supply the obscene passage that supports it.

Justify it.

I'm sorry, I cannot justify the obscenity of adultery.

You've either missed the point of the question or you're using sarcasm here since adultery was not the obscenity spoken of. That said, the obscenity of adultery is nowhere near the obscenity behind a God who demands the death of an adulterer by stoning. Have you ever seen someone stoned to death? Try YouTube. How Christians can so casually accept this God of cruelty and actually kowtow to Him is beyond me. But, they do casually accept this God of cruelty and actually kowtow to Him.

The fact is, at least I believe that it is a fact that adulterers do indeed deserve to be stoned to death. But of course, I also realize that I entertain sins of my own; and so because I do not desire to bring upon myself the fury of the wrath of God, I think it best to show compassion and forgiveness when dealing with the sins of others. You see, my dear friend, we don't have to go about giving everyone what they deserve. We can be merciful towards others, even if they deserve no mercy at all.