Micatala,
Why can't homosexuals form their own religious organizations and leave Christians alone?
That is where the satanic aspect of their movement dwells. Not only do they want to completely alter Christianity, but they want question the motives of decent Christians. And also they have the support of many enemies of Christians. It's easy to see the evil in all of this homosexualization.
melikio wrote:
You have your thoughts, and you have your words; whether or not you and the absolute "Creator" of all things, see things in the same way/s (despite your current "biblical" interpretations of things) has yet to be determined.
Christians have had homosexuals to deal with for tw-thousand years. Only now do gays and lesbians have the secular power with which to attack Christians.
You see, God may indeed never change; perhaps that is true.
"Perhaps?"
But it is NOT TRUE that mankind's "perceptions" of the Creator (yours included), truth, or right and wrong do not change (despite the many claims of strict biblical adherents). And THAT is what you cannot sell to anyone as being "immutable"
Hmm, a god that changes on the whim of man? An odd god.
Micatal wrote:
I would agree (with Melikio). I have never claimed that God's nature or purpose changes. However, clearly people have changed, at least in certain ways, including how they think about God, the level of their understanding of both God and the universe, and in other ways.
Jesus opposed that. The Sanhedrin members tried to change things and Jeses set them straight. Those that follow God have the right to defend their position against political power-mongers that want Christian tithes.
As a result, God changes how he interacts with us, just as a father changes how he interacts with his children as they mature.
That is true. That does not change marriage. That does not change the incompatibility to have sodomy celebrated in the Church. Or, as Paul puts it those who are or practice arsenokotai. Christians must make a stand against this attack by homosexualism. It takes no prisoners. All, must submit to "it." That is even your point Micatala. Otherwise you would agree that homosexuals should start their own organizational religion.
1John wrote:
micatala wrote:
However, most of your comparisons to me are quite outrageous and over the top. It is most certainly not the 'same logic' to equate Satan worshippers or those who practice human sacrifice with homosexuals.
Actually homosexuality is alwys compared with or tied to pagan practices.
Interesting point. I and others have pointed out that, where homosexuality is spoken against, it is always in the context of idolatry, at least in the NT, and usually in the OT also.
I should have made myself far more clear. Homosexuality is always tied to pagan idolatry
when liberal theologians are trying to convince good Christians they should change their beliefs.
That of course can and will never happen. All that will result is the utter persecution of the Church by the "attempted" homosexualization of good congregations. The congrgations that believe repentance is an immutable concept that is.
However, I think you have the logic backwards. You seem to be saying homosexuality is evil because it is idolatrous.
I said I was sorry for allowing a tiny crack in my apologia to be blasted wide open by a liberal treatment of what I let slip. And you provided the TNT I see. I usually am not that sloppy. Your niceness got me to slip a bit.
This does not follow. What Paul is implying in his passages is that behavior that stems from idolatry is sinful, including homosexuality, but also many other sins.
And all of those people that committed all of those sins, had to change their ways!!!!
It is a reasonable reading to say that homosexuality that is not associated with idolatry is not necessarily sinful.
AND there it is folks!
How in the world that that can be reasoned by anyone shows more is going on than just loving your neighbor as yourself.
This is not being relativistic at all. It is merely following what the text actually says, as near as we can based on the original language, intent, and context.
See folks.
This is why we Christians are to put on the "WHOLE" armor.
In the original languages, their intent, and, in context of the Jews and Christians, homosexuality finds not one place where it is encouraged, condoned, promoted OR celebrated.
However, traditional does not necessarily equal correct, and we have a number of examples of traditional interpretations (e.g. on slavery, origins of race, the structure of the solar system, etc.) being wrong.
And traditional does mean immutable.
Actually, no it does not.
Oh really? The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not immutable? Repentance is not immutable? There is some other way to God than what Jesus proclaimed?
Immutable would mean essentially "cannot be changed."
The facts usually break down to the essentials.
Traditional means "has not changed for a long time." There is a big, big difference.
In traditions we see immutable statements.
If these were the same, then all "traditional" interpretations would still be valid today. In this case, Christianity itself would be non-traditional and heretical, as the traditional interpretation of Jesus time by the "traditionalists" was that Jesus was not God.
Really? The apostles were there at the start. Thomas said "My Lord and my God," TO Jesus. A guy (Guy) that was dead a few days earlier and now was with them for lunch.
There are traditions that were held by heretics. See Arianism.
Other interpretations that would still be valid would be that the earth is immovable and the sun revolves around it,
That's in the Bible?"
I just heard this morning on TV about what time the sun rose this morning.
. . . that all OT laws must be followed, that women must wear their hair long and men short, that women do not have equal status with men within the church, that polygamy is OK, that concubines and slaves are OK, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Where was polygamy changed? Was slavery a concept of kidnapping Africans and treating humans like animals? Loving your wife as Christ loved the Church puts her above even yourself (if you're a man). Paul's writing to a single Church has what bearing on Church politics? And last time I read the OT they screwed up following all the laws a lot.
Still not one place where same-gender sex and marriage can find any support to be embraced by Christians, or, Jews.
Yes, the current traditional view would need to change, but we already know that traditional views are not always correct, and that true Christianity itself is no lover of tradition, as Jesus himself was not a slave to the traditions of His time.
Jesus set in stone many teachings. Marriage for one.
You're going to have to join Joseph Smith and Mohammad and get a direct message from a "god," and even then, you'll have to start another new religion to get this homosexualization to become religious dogma.
Quote:
I have made the case that same-gender sex acts is no where acceptable to the Biblical record. YOU and your camp, can only alter texts that have always been interpretated correctly. You fit in your altered and new religious goals to your new religion. That is OK I believe to say.
Again, an argument based on tradition. I am not saying we should take tradition rightly. But neither do I think we should never question tradition, as we know tradition has been wrong in the past.
Questioning tradition is 100% valid. Still, no way to inculcate homosexuality and "its" culture and community actions and beliefs into Christian Churches. No possible way.
We should argue on the basis of what is correct according to our best efforts to understand the text,
That is what we are doing. Homosexual politics fails the test. It is just another anti-Christian movement set against the Church. Easily provable to be doing so. But, then again, you moderators deny me the ability to post the necessary R-Rating proof to show "what" homosexuality "is" and "does."
. . . but also what in our best faith effort informed by the Holy Spirit we would think God would want us to do.
I urge you to be very careful here. I cannot stress that strongly enough.
. . . This is how incorrect traditions of the past were corrected. I do not want to imply that anyone is a Pharisee, but the Pharisees were traditionalists of the first order. Jesus had no qualms about taking an untraditional view of scripture, especially when it was necessary to follow the higher calling of God. This is exactly what he was doing when he healed on the Sabbath.
I'm sorry. What did He "do" on the Sabbath?
We have had a guy on these boards claim that Jesus healed a child sex slave owned by a pedophile as the way we should see this homosexualization of Christian Churches as a good thing.
I don't need to invent the horror of homosexualization. The evidence is handed to me by the clubmembers that rally around homosexuals. I just need to stay honest. There are plenty of people documenting what homosexuals are doing. Some things cannot and will not change.
Allowing homosexuals a place at the Christian table would not require any significant overhaul in any of the central tenets of Christianity.
Just that Jesus was wrong.
Hmm. Exactly how am I saying Jesus was wrong about anything?
Marriage and sexuality.
Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Jesus' statements on marriage do specifically mention men and women, but this merely reflects that homosexual marriage was not part of the discussion at that time.
Jesus sermon on marriage "and" sexuality, does not allow even a crack for your liberal/progressive treatement of marriage or sexuality.
It is a big assumption to say that his silence on the matter means he condemned homosexuality or homosexual marriage.
Then pedophilia is OK. Many older (adult) people find willing children to engage in sex with. NAMBLA proclaims that very thing. Where does your slippery slope stop? Homosexual authorities? Pederasty was the order of the day for the kind of homosexuality that so repulsed Paul. And before you slide into that crack . . . Paul invented arsenokotai to label "homosexual" acts and his treatment on lesbianism doesn't get a much nicer examination. Still, not one celebration of anything that we would call gay or lesbain today.
In general within the Bible, God talks to the audience at hand in their context using language they understand, discussing situations they experienced.
This doesn't head you in the homosexualization you are seeking.
Jesus typically speaks in language that his Jewish and agrarian society would understand. He does not specifically address all sorts of things that we wrestle with today. The explosion of technology, the presence of power that threatens the entire existence of the planet within human hands, contraception, etc. etc. Would we assume that Jesus' statements on marriage outlaw contraception? I don't think so.
You want to force homosexuality onto Christians on that logic? Then, anything and everyone can now get access to Christians. I take my stand on the evil present in slinging open wide the gate of relativism in your position. You'll nver get that to happen but many people will suffer by relativism. THE great apostacy.
Yes, marriage in Jesus time, at least in his society was probably always a man and a woman.
So Jesus was only God in Roman times. Uh yeah.
So what. THis does not mean He insists today it must be so. Government in Jesus' time did not include democracy.
Juluis Caesar lived before Jesus came to us. The "senate" didn't like what he was doing to their democratic republic. And the Gospel doesn't doesn't allow for your neo-liberal progressive politics either.
Travel in Jesus' time did not include automobiles.
Though people had been grinded under the wheels of chariots.
War in Jesus' time did not include weapons of mass destruction.
You're joking right? I'm to take your position seriously with that treatise? The Roman army WAS a weapon of mass destruction. You've never read a history book? They entirely descimated Jerusalem.
Religions in Jesus' time did not include CHristianity, and certainly not the multiplicity of Christian denominations we see today. Marriage in Jesus' time did include polygamy. Society in Jesus' time did include slavery.
I am a slave to Christ. Onesimus was a runaway salve owned by Philemon that Paul sent back to Philemon to treat like a brother. Ploygamy was stil . . . man/woman marriage. Good points Micatala, but none allowing for your treatment of Christians, er, I mean, the followers of "The Way."
To say that what was commonly practiced or not practiced in Jesus' time must also be what we practice or don't practice today does not follow from the text of the Bible. It is simply a 'traditionalist assumption.'
What follows "from the Biblical texts" is not one place where same-gender sex acts (we call homosexuality today) is ever OK. Not even the liberalest theologian can supply even one place that will support their goals.
It would not nullify the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, the nature of God . . .
Atonement. Please look up the concept. It is an immutable one.
Stop right there. The nature of God? God created man after His image and after His likeness. Male and female created He them.
God's nature is spiritual.
God walked and ate on earth. Even in the Old Testament. One place as we was heading to deal with Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jesus said 'my words are spirit and they are life, the flesh counts for nothing.' It is clearly our spiritual nature that is created in God's image.
Your point is correct. I will agree with you here 100%.
There is no grounds for believing God is both male and female, or some 'God persons' are male and some female.
The Bible goes out of its way to present God as male and female. Jesus as a hen desiring her offspring.
This is part of our biological nature and I would hold is part of God's creation, but I think making a case that our 'maleness' or 'femaleness' is an essential part of God's nature on the basis of what is written in the Bible would be difficult at best.
Not difficult at all if things are taken "in context." Then all of the Biblical marriage ideology and symbolism takes on its pure beauty. It IS the act of creation that is also proclaimed within a "joining" of man with woman. It is not a difficult concept. It has only recently been poisoned in the minds of neo-liberal pogressives.
I am not denying the maleness and femaleness is somehow endorsed by God, that he sees it as a good thing, that we are to experience it as a blessing. I am simply saying that the fact that male and female are endorsed as good in the Bible does not imply that homosexuality is inherently bad.
I'm sorry you are so wrong there. The belittling of marriage and the corruption inherent in this new style liberal/progressive theology is as real as death itself. The Bible is clear in its condemnation of same-gender sex acts from beginning to end.
Again, this is simply a traditional assumption overlaid on the texts that speak of male and female.
But unfortunately for you liberals there is not one shred of evidence that supports your treatment of same-gender sex acts can in any way find the light of day. Without, repentance being front and center. BUT, gays and lesbians proclaim and demand, that they are doing nothing wrong. I'm sorry man, that seperates them from the Church. Look up atonement. The Bible does not let congenital conditions get a pass for wrong behaviors to be supported.
Quote:
They were born with a disordered condition
In your opinion. Others might have the opinion that they were created by God as they are.
I'm sure that Molech worshippers stood on that same right. Actually still do.
I think we give them the benefit of the doubt, as that is what scripture clearly asks us to do in Romans 14 and elsewhere.
I have dismantled the liberal treatment of Romans 14.
Same-gender sex acts (Homosexuality) is a VERY disputable matter. I think the greatest threat besides Islam for Christians on earth today.
Quote:
Why don't gays and lesbians practice what they want to preach? they should do it somewhere elee. No Christian wants their children convinced that they shoud choose to indulge their homosexual feelings.
Many do. How would you ever hear about the ones who did? We unfortunately tend only to hear and see the ones who want to be public about it.
The virulent anti-Christian ones we cannot avoid anymore. The sneaky ones are the pedophile priests AND teachers it seems. Sooner or later they must go to a community that thinks their behavior is just peachy. That is not Christian Churches.
Besides, this is a red herring. I have been clear that I think homosexual Christians should follow the same Christian practices as heterosexuals. I have never endorsed the idea that they somehow 'recruit' people into homosexuality, as if that were possible.
Several homosexuals have tried to recruit me into homosexuality. Their "Gay dar" pointed them in my direction. What "was I?" Young and attractive. I knew many guys that had sex with men and regretted being so stupid and naive and getting raped as it were. How many pedophiles claim they are "that way," because they were victimized by a pedophile? God saved me from harm, but that does not mean I just go on my merry way and forget. Otherwise the starving deserve to starve to death.
Now, I am recruited because my staunch dissent and disapproval means I am a guilt-ridden closeted gay guy, and that I just have to come to terms with my dissent as a member leaving the flock of gay guys. You can't deal with these people. If you say no, you're a bigot. if you point out their repulsive behaviors, you're one of them but just feeling guilty about it. It is so satanic. If it is so OK why does anyone have a problem with them? Because it is not OK, and with a Christian there is God dwelling in us, protecting us with our powers of reason. Homosexuals need to go elsewhere IF they have any decency in their choice position.
Quote:
What difference is there in having sexual feelings for same-sex people and adultery or promiscuous behavior of anyone? None.
Uhhh. There is a huge difference. Are you saying there is no difference between a person having heterosexual feelings and engaging in promiscuity and adultery? It certainly sounds like that is exactly what you are saying. At least that is what consistently follows from this logic.
Most men that I have known have the desire for multiple sex partners. It is a sexual orientation to screw lots of woman. Christians are driven to deny these sexual urges and commit to a woman. What kind of crap is that? Doesn't "God" know how He created me and/or us? It is just a congenital condition that men screw around. And, of course adultery and promiscuity takes "two."
You continue to equate mere homosexual tendencies with all sort of other behaviors and attitudes without justification.
No. In perfect comparisons. It is wrong behavior, like others that we are to repent of and no longer "do." There is no other message "in the Bible." NT or OT. The OT just is much more forceful about same-gender sex acts.
Are we to believe that just because Jesus didn't want the adulterous woman stoned to death, that now adultery is OK? Same logic Micatala that you are using to license same-gender sex acts.
Your silent support Micatala.
You continue to assume or imply that all homosexuals are promiscuous, and are aggressively seeking to encourage others to be homosexual.
That is exactly their message.
I have never denied that such homosexuals exist.
And not one movement by any gay or lesbian to alter gay culture which is steeped in promiscuity. Lesbians by definition that want children MUST commit adultery. Gays guys too.
But I know for a fact that not all homosexuals are of this ilk.
I know lot's of Mormons that are far nicer than I am. They are worshipping a false god.
I choose the God at whose feet I must fall. I do not demand that God changes for me. That is the message of the Gospel and the entire New Testament. If we are to judge Truth by nice people, then Hezbollah is a humanitarian group of righteous God-fearing people. They feed the poor and are admired by very many people. Bin Laden too.
Those who are not do not deserve to be mischaracterized and slandered as if they were.
I just agree with the Biblical record. I just present history and words correctly. That eliminates any malice from "me."
Certainly the teachings of the Bible would not endorse this.
It does not endorse same-gender sex acts and yet YOU are the one claiming "I" am wrong. Others claim I am far worse a person. Most are anti-Christians or ex-believers. I should fear their opinion in no way.
Heterosexuals are not asked to never engage in sex, nor are they asked to deny that they are heterosexuals. Both of these burdens it seems you would place on homosexuals.
"I" have not placed anything on anyone. Get real. I just preswent the rational responses to this altering of Christian Churches and Christians by this Gay Agenda to rule us.
It is a burden to marry a woman or a man?
It is for a homosexual.
It is impossible for a man NOT to commit adulery. "If" Jesus, in His insult about just looking at a woman in lust IS correct. He is obviously. How many people get angry when their mate just "looks" at someone else. Jesus was pretty smart. He said marriage is a man and a woman. I didn't invent the Bible.
The same as if a heterosexual were expected to marry someone of the same gender.
Why is just the mere thought "so" repulsive? The biggest mistake the Gay Agenda ever did was pushed their political power to drive homosexuality out of mental illness. It obviously IS a problem with the organic mind. Do we let sociopaths now claim civil rights based on thier congenital condition? Your slippery slope and that of homosexuals. Not mine.
Would it not be a burden for us to expect people to marry a person with whom they could find absolutely no sexual enjoyment? Certainly people do not marry for sex alone, but I know very few people who do not expect to have sexual enjoyment within marriage.
I thought "sexism" wa a crime? Too. Aren't homosexuals just sexists? Women drive me crazy thinking the are equal to men on everything, but, I do not desire to marry a man because i don't like aspects of feminism. BUT, you still have to deal with God in the OT and God in the NT detailing what marriage "is."
OK, OK, secularists can license whatever abominations they want to, but the Church must stand outside of secular evil. Always.
The golden rule would say do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
That would be first preaching the Gospel without lying about it. There is no love in a deceptive liar. That is what Satan is though.
If you expect homosexuals to marry someone of the opposite gender, then why should others not expect you to marry someone of the same gender?
God expects them to. Including not supporting same-gender sex acts.
Is there some where in the Bible I missed, that supports, promotes, or condones same-gender sex acts and same-gender marriage?
I am a Christian. I believe the Bible has defind what marriage is. It is not that hard a subject. Just stick with the facts.
But please, remember that I am not standing in your way to develope a new religion or to implement any secular political goal you see fit.
Just, please, allow me the same rights to live my life as a Christian must.
Please stop the criminalizing of dissent from secular atheism and its politics of subjugation and totalitarianism, based on relativism.
Please.
