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]

[quot]KCKID

Mr. KID?

Have you retired?

No, I haven't retired. I am, however, weary with this debate which has now become little more than forum pingpong.

Every thread here is "forum pingpong." It's what debate is. You don't think people are here looking for pals do you? And, you are weary?

I never tire of contending for the faith. I am glad my endurance is paying off. Peter and Paul set a good example.

You refuse to acknowledge that heterosexuals, bi-sexuals and homosexuals have NOTHING to do with their particular sexual orientation. They simply ARE who they are

.

That is not my premise in this thread. And your premise here is that there is a congenital excuse for any behavior a person wants to justify. That seems the very formula for a Sodom and Gomorrah style society. Remember, God told Abraham why Sodom came to His attention so dramatically. It's quite relative "nowadays."

"If it feels good, do it!"

The religious doctrine of the secular paradigm.

How many shattered lives is it now since JUST the Hippy Sixties sexual revolution? Are we at a billion yet? More than likely that is a safe number to bet on if you hedge it over the top.

It's fascinating that you can see the evil of adultry and divorce and yet are sightless to other licentious horrors. That fascinates me so.

You refuse to accept homosexuals as who they are but instead refer to them as sexual deviants, i.e. in your ignorant view they are really deviant heterosexuals who exist for no other purpose than to p--s off Christians and thumb their noses at Christianity.

I don't know know if I can deny some of that. Without doubt, the gay community looks to be doing nothing more than trying to p--s off the Christians worldwide. It does look to be a frontal attack most of the time NOW. Especially when you see the types of people and groups they are supported and encouraged by. I guess we are not sallowed to introduce the supernatural forces arrayed against The Church on this website.

ABC2 (Australia) presented part two of The Most Hated Family In America a couple of nights ago. It's probably available on YouTube. BBC presenter, Louis Theroux, made a second visit to the Westboro Baptist Church. His first visit was several years ago. This time he found the Phelps Family to be as hate-filled as ever toward 'gays' as well as just about everyone else who isn't them. However, their numbers are dwindling as the brains of some of their brainwashed family members (previously young kids) have now kicked in. These family members have now, of course, become estranged from the main Phelps Family and they - like most everyone else in America and, indeed, the whole world - are hell-bound.

OK. Whatever. To compare Christians that oppose the gay agenda to the Phelps family shows a very definate cunning in the Churches enemies.

While I don't know you other than through the contents of your posts, 99percent, I couldn't help equating you with Fred and Shirley-Roper Phelps while I was watching.

I expect nothing less from people like you.

I imagined an encounter with you being similar to the hate-spouting crud that these individuals and their unfortunate brainwashed followers come out with.

Encountering brain washed people, I have come to see, is a very common experience in today's world. And of course that is what it looks like you are ascribing to me. It's interesting that you effortlessly try to fit me in that category, when it takes a concerted effort to examine oneself daily. To "test all things and hold firmly on to the truth." I have rarely encountered a modern-day adversay to The Church that is willing to do that. I do that with every accusation and charge you and yours lay on me.

Do you notice the lack of Evangelicals in these debates? And why is that? They are terrified of the encounter. I have been told that in person and in emails. This thread and other work I do on this subject, has had me going from coast to coast of late. Am I afraid? You bet I am. The consequences of not doing obeisance to the secular-progressive paradigm carries a heavy blow. The ever-present reality of one losing their job for not celebrating gay behavior is very real. Look at how easily you define me as a Phelps-like person. It isn't a knee-jerk response, it is a calculated movement.

Question: What is it that sets YOU apart from these religious nuts? You might not picket funerals or stand on street corners with "GOD HATES FAGS - SEE LEVITICUS 20:13" banners but isn't your message to homosexuals exactly the same as that of the Westboro Baptist Church? If not, then how is it different?

Serioulsy? You cannot tear yourself away from your mentally conditioned response behavior to understand the OP? The fact is, I wrote it. If you cannot see the dramatic difference between me and the Phelps' family, there is nothing I can do to open your thought process to reality. I am just defining positions as they are. The OP allows for a lifetime of enfettered indulgence for homosexuals and their supporters.

It appears you will not do the same for those of us that have been born with a sexual orientation that rejects the support for homosexuality.

In other words, it is far past time for those of us Christians that are labeled homophobic, hateful and bigoted to start suing our tormentors in Civil Court. We still have the civil rights protection to do something about the bullying, tormenting and harrassment we are encountering for our choice to live as our consciences dictate.

I for one will sue the first person in real life that accuses me of being hateful, a bigot, or suffering from a phobia, because I choose to live as a Christian and preach and teach as a Christian, against homosexuality and those that engage in the behavior. It is illegal to discriminate against a persons religious beliefs.

Today, according to the U. S. Government Manual of 1998-99, the EEOC enforces laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age in hiring, promoting, firing, setting wages, testing, training, apprenticeship, and all other terms and conditions of employment.

- http://www.archives.gov/education/lesso ... ights-act/

And I couldn't care less what is "added" to that list.

It's just far past time for Christians to do as Saint Paul did when it came to recognition of his citizenship and rights under the law.

During the course of this debate I have never shied away from presenting counter arguments (as per scripture) to your continuous demeaning tirades toward those who are who they are through no doing of their own.

While also claiming that scripture is worthless? Irony is lost on that huh? You use what scripture? there is no such thing as same gender marriage supported, promoted or engaged in ANYWHERE in the Bible. And do I really have to go back and extract quotes from you demeaning the very Bible you seem to rely on?

You have to go to unimagineable machinations to make gay behavior even remotely seem justifiable in a Christian worldview. And you came up empty at the end of YOUR tirade.

Do you even think about what you think about? We are conditioned to believe what we believe.

Now think about this . . .. I have been called a closeted homosexual because I take a stand against supporting and promoting homosexuals and homosexuality "in the Church."

What does make you and the people that very much so support and encourage homosexuals and homosexuality?

By logic, "you all" should be declared homosexuals far more reasonably than me. Are you gay? A tree, after all is known by its fruit. Per Jesus.

Perhaps YOU are who YOU are through no doing of your own also. If so, you perhaps need to acknowledge that you are self righteous and religiously arrogant and that you use the scriptures merely to serve your own self interests.

I find this extremely common in people on your side of the divide. You don't seem to understand the differnce between confidence and hubris. The very effective arguments against gay theology, held by the vast majority of Bible believing Christians, does not come from egotism or academic haughtiness (the behavior and attitude I do see in our our adversaries) it comes from simple honesty.
There IS NO SUCH THING AS SAME GENDER MARRIAGE SUPPORTED, CONDONED, ENCOURAGED OR JUSTIFIABLE in the Bible.

YOU fail to admit that. The premise of ALL homosexual behavior being attached to a pagan ritual is laughable. It simply does not stand up to the testing. But I have noticed that in true Alinsky-style, that a mob that is focused to scream loud enough over and over again is rewarded with submission from the secular authorities.

That will never happen to the Church. There may be some denominations picked off by those tactics, but the Church Universal will never be defeated byb the world and its way.

It's heart breaking seeing what is happening to good Christians by the gay agenda. Where is the contrite spirit of the gay person coming to the Church? I don't see it. What I see and experience (and especially here from people like you) is that Christians need to kow tow to the gay culture and secular political power. How "hospitable" is that? It seems the exact opposite when examined in the light of reality.

[color]I'm sure there are any number of scriptures that deal with this kind of dysfunctional personality. If you expect 'gays' to repent and 'change' (change to WHAT I haven't a clue!) then surely so can you.[/color]

See how easiliy you attack me? So effortlessly that you feel a hero in the making.

I expect people that apply the nomenclature "Christian" to themselves, to at least be the kind of Christian described and defined in the New Testament. I am not expereincing that with gay theology. I see a version of secular-humanism dressed up priestly in a cowed room of the apathetic.

And YES, repentance of homosexual behavior is to be done. It is to be jettisoned.

I could ascribe to you personally all sorts of darkness like you have done to me over and over again and still are in comparing me to Phelps and his lot.

But that is not what THIS thread is about. Although I have solid experience with the character assassination tactics of the commited agendaist.

This thread is about the antithetical nature of gay culture invading the Church by force. It is the calling out (no pun intended) of the kind of theology that is behind the incessant desires to make The Church another version of progressive-secular-humanism political and social aspirations and doing that in well-defined and solidly identified and identifiable places that call themselves "Churches" is the premise.

I would think that a person as committed - as you portray you are - to tolerance and diversity, would have been a supporter of that endeavor.

But alas . . .[/quote]

The Church of England has warned the Government not to go ahead with plans to legalise gay marriage.

In a response to the Prime Minister's announcement of the equal marriage bill yesterday, the Church of England said its defence of the traditional understanding of marriage was "not knee-jerk resistance to change".

Rather, the Church said it was defending the traditional definition of marriage out of a "conviction that the consequences of change will not be beneficial for society as a whole".

"Our concern is for the way the meaning of marriage will change for everyone, gay or straight, if the proposals are enacted," the statement said.

"Because we believe that the inherited understanding of marriage contributes a vast amount to the common good, our defence of that understanding is motivated by a concern for the good of all in society."

The Church defended the "uniqueness" of marriage, saying that it embodied the distinctiveness of men and women seen most explicitly in their union's potential for procreation.

It warned that changing the nature of marriage forever would be "divisive and deliver no obvious legal gains given the rights already conferred by civil partnerships".

"We believe that redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships will entail a dilution in the meaning of marriage for everyone by excluding the fundamental complementarity of men and women from the social and legal definition of marriage," the Church said.

The Church also expressed concern that there was no democratic mandate for the legalisation of marriage as it had not been referred to in the Queen's speech or in any party manifesto.

"In our view the Government will require an overwhelming mandate from the consultation to move forward with on these proposals and to make them a legislative priority," it said.

The equal marriage bill is to be introduced to Parliament next week. David Cameron said the bill would allow same-sex marriage ceremonies to be performed in churches.

He insisted that churches would not be forced to perform the ceremonies.

However, his assurances were dismissed by the Christian Legal Centre, which warned that equality legislation will not provide any effective protection for churches from litigation.

"Any such assurances are meaningless," said CLC director Andrea Minichiello Williams.

At the Christian Legal Centre we have seen countless cases where Christians have been forced out of their jobs for their refusal to condone and promote homosexual practice.

"Their views have not been respected or accommodated and Mr Cameron has ignored their plight.

This does not bode well for British Christians if further legislation is passed. Assurances to churches who do not wish to perform same-sex marriages fly in the face of all the evidence."

- http://www.christiantoday.com/article/g ... /31216.htm

[99percentatheism]

Thanks KCKID. Unfortunately in the past the Bible has been used to support racism and to undermine the role of women as coequals in this struggle we call life. Prejudice against homosexuals is one of the few remaining marks of the bigot that remains for a decreasing number of people who put their interpretation of Bible ahead of helping and standing up for everyone, regardless of the quality of their character.

One by one prejudices against others because of qualities they have through no choice of their own has dissipated. Race and gender have finally fallen. Even staunch foes of racial equality such as the Mormons have come around and changed official doctrine to allow all races to have acces to the Kingdom of God. The church, or rather some denominations and believers therein still preach their scriptures stand as a shield against equality.

I believe those who deny freedom to homosexuals are simply using the Bible as an excuse to support their own personal fear and hatreds.

And those that have an intense desire to eliminate The Church from earth are involved in an "agenda" to do just that. Perverting the truth by cunning and seductive lies - and even that in the form of a new translation - have been around since the first Church meetings. So say Jesus, Peter, Jude and of course consistent Church history.

And here we go again with the latest desperate attempt "The Queen James Bible."

Here's an example: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=21780

Nothing like an afront when the sheep skin falls off?

[Danmark]

Thanks KCKID. Unfortunately in the past the Bible has been used to support racism and to undermine the role of women as coequals in this struggle we call life. Prejudice against homosexuals is one of the few remaining marks of the bigot that remains for a decreasing number of people who put their interpretation of Bible ahead of helping and standing up for everyone, regardless of the quality of their character.

One by one prejudices against others because of qualities they have through no choice of their own has dissipated. Race and gender have finally fallen. Even staunch foes of racial equality such as the Mormons have come around and changed official doctrine to allow all races to have acces to the Kingdom of God. The church, or rather some denominations and believers therein still preach their scriptures stand as a shield against equality.

I believe those who deny freedom to homosexuals are simply using the Bible as an excuse to support their own personal fear and hatreds.

And those that have an intense desire to eliminate The Church from earth are involved in an "agenda" to do just that. Perverting the truth by cunning and seductive lies - and even that in the form of a new translation - have been around since the first Church meetings. So say Jesus, Peter, Jude and of course consistent Church history.

And here we go again with the latest desperate attempt "The Queen James Bible."

Here's an example: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=21780

Nothing like an afront when the sheep skin falls off?

I don't think the church is ever injured because its members love too much, or too broadly. We all agree Jesus loved those who were persecuted, the unlovely, those who were despised by others. I don't recall the precise verse, but didn't Jesus say something about it being no big deal if you love your friends and family? That it was loving the unlovely, loving even your enemy, that he commanded?
Wasn't Jesus criticized for spending time with the common folk, with those that others reviled? Somehow I just can't picture Jesus having 'an intense desire' to rid the church of two people who have pledged a lifetime commitment to each other, 'forsaking all others' just because they are of the same sex.

I am well aware that as much as he welcomed sinners, he also told them to 'sin no more,' but I have a hard time picturing Him telling the committed couple in my example above, they are sinning.

I also think His Church can easily survive embracing all people. I'm not so sure it can survive hypocrites and modern day Pharisees who claim to be its spokesmen.

[99percentatheism]

Danmark

Thanks KCKID. Unfortunately in the past the Bible has been used to support racism and to undermine the role of women as coequals in this struggle we call life. Prejudice against homosexuals is one of the few remaining marks of the bigot that remains for a decreasing number of people who put their interpretation of Bible ahead of helping and standing up for everyone, regardless of the quality of their character.

One by one prejudices against others because of qualities they have through no choice of their own has dissipated. Race and gender have finally fallen. Even staunch foes of racial equality such as the Mormons have come around and changed official doctrine to allow all races to have acces to the Kingdom of God. The church, or rather some denominations and believers therein still preach their scriptures stand as a shield against equality.

I believe those who deny freedom to homosexuals are simply using the Bible as an excuse to support their own personal fear and hatreds.

And those that have an intense desire to eliminate The Church from earth are involved in an "agenda" to do just that. Perverting the truth by cunning and seductive lies - and even that in the form of a new translation - have been around since the first Church meetings. So say Jesus, Peter, Jude and of course consistent Church history.

And here we go again with the latest desperate attempt "The Queen James Bible."

Here's an example: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=21780

Nothing like an afront when the sheep skin falls off?

I don't think the church is ever injured because its members love too much, or too broadly.

OK. But what does that mean? We "love" those coming into the Church and corrupting it?

We all agree Jesus loved those who were persecuted, the unlovely, those who were despised by others.

He ate with sinners. He never "affirmed" their sins and sinning.

I don't recall the precise verse, but didn't Jesus say something about it being no big deal if you love your friends and family?

"Even the pagans do that."

So, you at least agree that the gay agenda is the enemy of the Church.

That it was loving the unlovely, loving even your enemy, that he commanded?

Never was it encouraged to support their sins and sinning. To redefine sin by some congenital condition.

Wasn't Jesus criticized for spending time with the common folk, with those that others reviled?

Yup. And He still preached the Gospel. He didn't preach relativism and "anything goes" and "if it feels good do it."

I believe it was just the opposite.

Somehow I just can't picture Jesus having 'an intense desire' to rid the church of two people who have pledged a lifetime commitment to each other, 'forsaking all others' just because they are of the same sex.

"Treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

That defines pagans and tax collectors as people that are not what His followers should aspire to be.

I am well aware that as much as he welcomed sinners, he also told them to 'sin no more,' but I have a hard time picturing Him telling the committed couple in my example above, they are sinning.

I would expect as much from you. Of course that's how you see things.

I also think His Church can easily survive embracing all people.

And you are a committed Christian saying that? If The Church is no different than a gay pride parade or feminist diatribe against any paternal expression, I doubt that it would be seen as anything different than a secular club meeting at any number of secular colleges in anywhere USA.

When one becomes a Christian, there should be a change in many aspects of their lives and worldview. A difference from being lost in the world and its ways and from being "saved" from a doomed cadre of blind lemmings. Jesus came to save the lost, not support the the blind leading the blind.

I'm not so sure it can survive hypocrites and modern day Pharisees who claim to be its spokesmen.

The hypocrites could easily be defined as the gay pride activists demanding to take control and influence over the objecting masses of Christians that HAVE repented of their sins . . . asking them to leave. How "unloving" of the gay community.

The Pharisees sold out the God of Isreal for political power. Did you know that? They were political appointees of a wicked ruler. How many LGBT activists are obtaining political AND religious power to force their sexual proclivities and social power to be celebrated in the Church? That is a very real example of what the Pharisees were and are.

[Danmark]

Danmark

Thanks KCKID. Unfortunately in the past the Bible has been used to support racism and to undermine the role of women as coequals in this struggle we call life. Prejudice against homosexuals is one of the few remaining marks of the bigot that remains for a decreasing number of people who put their interpretation of Bible ahead of helping and standing up for everyone, regardless of the quality of their character.

One by one prejudices against others because of qualities they have through no choice of their own has dissipated. Race and gender have finally fallen. Even staunch foes of racial equality such as the Mormons have come around and changed official doctrine to allow all races to have acces to the Kingdom of God. The church, or rather some denominations and believers therein still preach their scriptures stand as a shield against equality.

I believe those who deny freedom to homosexuals are simply using the Bible as an excuse to support their own personal fear and hatreds.

And those that have an intense desire to eliminate The Church from earth are involved in an "agenda" to do just that. Perverting the truth by cunning and seductive lies - and even that in the form of a new translation - have been around since the first Church meetings. So say Jesus, Peter, Jude and of course consistent Church history.

And here we go again with the latest desperate attempt "The Queen James Bible."

Here's an example: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=21780

Nothing like an afront when the sheep skin falls off?

I don't think the church is ever injured because its members love too much, or too broadly.

OK. But what does that mean? We "love" those coming into the Church and corrupting it?

We all agree Jesus loved those who were persecuted, the unlovely, those who were despised by others.

He ate with sinners. He never "affirmed" their sins and sinning.

I don't recall the precise verse, but didn't Jesus say something about it being no big deal if you love your friends and family?

"Even the pagans do that."

So, you at least agree that the gay agenda is the enemy of the Church.

That it was loving the unlovely, loving even your enemy, that he commanded?

Never was it encouraged to support their sins and sinning. To redefine sin by some congenital condition.

Wasn't Jesus criticized for spending time with the common folk, with those that others reviled?

Yup. And He still preached the Gospel. He didn't preach relativism and "anything goes" and "if it feels good do it."

I believe it was just the opposite.

Somehow I just can't picture Jesus having 'an intense desire' to rid the church of two people who have pledged a lifetime commitment to each other, 'forsaking all others' just because they are of the same sex.

"Treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

That defines pagans and tax collectors as people that are not what His followers should aspire to be.

I am well aware that as much as he welcomed sinners, he also told them to 'sin no more,' but I have a hard time picturing Him telling the committed couple in my example above, they are sinning.

I would expect as much from you. Of course that's how you see things.

I also think His Church can easily survive embracing all people.

And you are a committed Christian saying that? If The Church is no different than a gay pride parade or feminist diatribe against any paternal expression, I doubt that it would be seen as anything different than a secular club meeting at any number of secular colleges in anywhere USA.

When one becomes a Christian, there should be a change in many aspects of their lives and worldview. A difference from being lost in the world and its ways and from being "saved" from a doomed cadre of blind lemmings. Jesus came to save the lost, not support the the blind leading the blind.

I'm not so sure it can survive hypocrites and modern day Pharisees who claim to be its spokesmen.

The hypocrites could easily be defined as the gay pride activists demanding to take control and influence over the objecting masses of Christians that HAVE repented of their sins . . . asking them to leave. How "unloving" of the gay community.

The Pharisees sold out the God of Isreal for political power. Did you know that? They were political appointees of a wicked ruler. How many LGBT activists are obtaining political AND religious power to force their sexual proclivities and social power to be celebrated in the Church? That is a very real example of what the Pharisees were and are.

I wrote:
I don't think the church is ever injured because its members love too much, or too broadly. We all agree Jesus loved those who were persecuted, the unlovely, those who were despised by others. I don't recall the precise verse, but didn't Jesus say something about it being no big deal if you love your friends and family? That it was loving the unlovely, loving even your enemy, that he commanded?
Wasn't Jesus criticized for spending time with the common folk, with those that others reviled? Somehow I just can't picture Jesus having 'an intense desire' to rid the church of two people who have pledged a lifetime commitment to each other, 'forsaking all others' just because they are of the same sex.

I am well aware that as much as he welcomed sinners, he also told them to 'sin no more,' but I have a hard time picturing Him telling the committed couple in my example above, they are sinning.

I also think His Church can easily survive embracing all people. I'm not so sure it can survive hypocrites and modern day Pharisees who claim to be its spokesmen.

You managed to chop a short post of 6 sentences into 10 pieces. If your goal is to render the simple incomprehensible, mission accomplished.

[99percentatheism]

Danmark

Thanks KCKID. Unfortunately in the past the Bible has been used to support racism and to undermine the role of women as coequals in this struggle we call life. Prejudice against homosexuals is one of the few remaining marks of the bigot that remains for a decreasing number of people who put their interpretation of Bible ahead of helping and standing up for everyone, regardless of the quality of their character.

One by one prejudices against others because of qualities they have through no choice of their own has dissipated. Race and gender have finally fallen. Even staunch foes of racial equality such as the Mormons have come around and changed official doctrine to allow all races to have acces to the Kingdom of God. The church, or rather some denominations and believers therein still preach their scriptures stand as a shield against equality.

I believe those who deny freedom to homosexuals are simply using the Bible as an excuse to support their own personal fear and hatreds.

And those that have an intense desire to eliminate The Church from earth are involved in an "agenda" to do just that. Perverting the truth by cunning and seductive lies - and even that in the form of a new translation - have been around since the first Church meetings. So say Jesus, Peter, Jude and of course consistent Church history.

And here we go again with the latest desperate attempt "The Queen James Bible."

Here's an example: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=21780

Nothing like an afront when the sheep skin falls off?

I don't think the church is ever injured because its members love too much, or too broadly.

OK. But what does that mean? We "love" those coming into the Church and corrupting it?

We all agree Jesus loved those who were persecuted, the unlovely, those who were despised by others.

He ate with sinners. He never "affirmed" their sins and sinning.

I don't recall the precise verse, but didn't Jesus say something about it being no big deal if you love your friends and family?

"Even the pagans do that."

So, you at least agree that the gay agenda is the enemy of the Church.

That it was loving the unlovely, loving even your enemy, that he commanded?

Never was it encouraged to support their sins and sinning. To redefine sin by some congenital condition.

Wasn't Jesus criticized for spending time with the common folk, with those that others reviled?

Yup. And He still preached the Gospel. He didn't preach relativism and "anything goes" and "if it feels good do it."

I believe it was just the opposite.

Somehow I just can't picture Jesus having 'an intense desire' to rid the church of two people who have pledged a lifetime commitment to each other, 'forsaking all others' just because they are of the same sex.

"Treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

That defines pagans and tax collectors as people that are not what His followers should aspire to be.

I am well aware that as much as he welcomed sinners, he also told them to 'sin no more,' but I have a hard time picturing Him telling the committed couple in my example above, they are sinning.

I would expect as much from you. Of course that's how you see things.

I also think His Church can easily survive embracing all people.

And you are a committed Christian saying that? If The Church is no different than a gay pride parade or feminist diatribe against any paternal expression, I doubt that it would be seen as anything different than a secular club meeting at any number of secular colleges in anywhere USA.

When one becomes a Christian, there should be a change in many aspects of their lives and worldview. A difference from being lost in the world and its ways and from being "saved" from a doomed cadre of blind lemmings. Jesus came to save the lost, not support the the blind leading the blind.

I'm not so sure it can survive hypocrites and modern day Pharisees who claim to be its spokesmen.

The hypocrites could easily be defined as the gay pride activists demanding to take control and influence over the objecting masses of Christians that HAVE repented of their sins . . . asking them to leave. How "unloving" of the gay community.

The Pharisees sold out the God of Isreal for political power. Did you know that? They were political appointees of a wicked ruler. How many LGBT activists are obtaining political AND religious power to force their sexual proclivities and social power to be celebrated in the Church? That is a very real example of what the Pharisees were and are.

I wrote:
I don't think the church is ever injured because its members love too much, or too broadly. We all agree Jesus loved those who were persecuted, the unlovely, those who were despised by others. I don't recall the precise verse, but didn't Jesus say something about it being no big deal if you love your friends and family? That it was loving the unlovely, loving even your enemy, that he commanded?
Wasn't Jesus criticized for spending time with the common folk, with those that others reviled? Somehow I just can't picture Jesus having 'an intense desire' to rid the church of two people who have pledged a lifetime commitment to each other, 'forsaking all others' just because they are of the same sex.

I am well aware that as much as he welcomed sinners, he also told them to 'sin no more,' but I have a hard time picturing Him telling the committed couple in my example above, they are sinning.

I also think His Church can easily survive embracing all people. I'm not so sure it can survive hypocrites and modern day Pharisees who claim to be its spokesmen.

You managed to chop a short post of 6 sentences into 10 pieces. If your goal is to render the simple incomprehensible, mission accomplished.

You can't just discount my apologia on your opinion just because you don't like being held accountable for what you believe and write.

Why do you think it is OK for people that have an ulterior motive, and a very distinctive ulterior motive at that, to be allowed to push their desires and demands where they are not wlecomed, or able to fit?

[Danmark]

You can't just discount my apologia on your opinion just because you don't like being held accountable for what you believe and write.

Why do you think it is OK for people that have an ulterior motive, and a very distinctive ulterior motive at that, to be allowed to push their desires and demands where they are not wlecomed, or able to fit?

I stand by every word I wrote. I do not see anyone having an ulterior motive. Are you suggesting that Christian gays are trying to infiltrate YOUR church in order to destroy it? I see Jesus as welcoming anyone and everyone who hears his message and wants to follow Him.

It seems odd to me that I, an atheist, am trying to see the words of Jesus as a message of love and acceptance, while you seem determined to interpret it as a message of rejection.

[99percentatheism]

Danmark

You can't just discount my apologia on your opinion just because you don't like being held accountable for what you believe and write.

Why do you think it is OK for people that have an ulterior motive, and a very distinctive ulterior motive at that, to be allowed to push their desires and demands where they are not wlecomed, or able to fit?

I stand by every word I wrote.

What else can you do?

I do not see anyone having an ulterior motive.

Warping the definition of marriage is an ulterior motive. Though now of course that agenda piece is no longer so hidden.

Are you suggesting that Christian gays are trying to infiltrate YOUR church in order to destroy it?

What do you think this is about? Schism follows where gay pride enters The Church. That is quite well-documented is it not?

I see Jesus as welcoming anyone and everyone who hears his message and wants to follow Him.

He set down guidelines. Repenting is the first step to the process of following him. I see no affirming of sin do you?

It seems odd to me that I, an atheist, am trying to see the words of Jesus as a message of love and acceptance, while you seem determined to interpret it as a message of rejection.

I would have to say that "you, an atheist," makes quite the statement about what is supporting the gay agenda coming at the Church. I am definately determined. But it is to contend for the faith delivered only once to the saints.

I would expect an atheist, or any other disinterested outsider to at least see the inappropriateness of homosexuality being encouraged and celebrated in places called Christian Churches, since there is no such thing as same gender marriage ANYWHERE even hinted at in the New Testament. In fact, the only form of marriage ever described in the Bible is man and woman.

It would be incredible to see just once, an atheist agree with that.

By the way, the gay tree? It's fruit is the godless celebrating their encroachment into The Church? You do after all openly assert your atheist position and worldview.

You don't see any irony there? Any sort of statement that that may make for we Christians to hear?

Read the following please. It is from Peter to other Christians:

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.

- 1 Peter 4

Who is the "They" that Peter is referring to?

I don't think it is Christians that have repented. Do you?

[Danmark]

Danmark

You can't just discount my apologia on your opinion just because you don't like being held accountable for what you believe and write.

Why do you think it is OK for people that have an ulterior motive, and a very distinctive ulterior motive at that, to be allowed to push their desires and demands where they are not wlecomed, or able to fit?

I stand by every word I wrote.

What else can you do?

I do not see anyone having an ulterior motive.

Warping the definition of marriage is an ulterior motive. Though now of course that agenda piece is no longer so hidden.

Are you suggesting that Christian gays are trying to infiltrate YOUR church in order to destroy it?

What do you think this is about? Schism follows where gay pride enters The Church. That is quite well-documented is it not?

I see Jesus as welcoming anyone and everyone who hears his message and wants to follow Him.

He set down guidelines. Repenting is the first step to the process of following him. I see no affirming of sin do you?

It seems odd to me that I, an atheist, am trying to see the words of Jesus as a message of love and acceptance, while you seem determined to interpret it as a message of rejection.

I would have to say that "you, an atheist," makes quite the statement about what is supporting the gay agenda coming at the Church. I am definately determined. But it is to contend for the faith delivered only once to the saints.

I would expect an atheist, or any other disinterested outsider to at least see the inappropriateness of homosexuality being encouraged and celebrated in places called Christian Churches, since there is no such thing as same gender marriage ANYWHERE even hinted at in the New Testament. In fact, the only form of marriage ever described in the Bible is man and woman.

It would be incredible to see just once, an atheist agree with that.

By the way, the gay tree? It's fruit is the godless celebrating their encroachment into The Church? You do after all openly assert your atheist position and worldview.

You don't see any irony there? Any sort of statement that that may make for we Christians to hear?

Read the following please. It is from Peter to other Christians:

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.

- 1 Peter 4

Who is the "They" that Peter is referring to?

I don't think it is Christians that have repented. Do you?

Do you ever consider that you may simply be wrong and that you are doing your church, your faith more harm than good?

[99percentatheism]

Danmark

You can't just discount my apologia on your opinion just because you don't like being held accountable for what you believe and write.

Why do you think it is OK for people that have an ulterior motive, and a very distinctive ulterior motive at that, to be allowed to push their desires and demands where they are not wlecomed, or able to fit?

I stand by every word I wrote.

What else can you do?

I do not see anyone having an ulterior motive.

Warping the definition of marriage is an ulterior motive. Though now of course that agenda piece is no longer so hidden.

Are you suggesting that Christian gays are trying to infiltrate YOUR church in order to destroy it?

What do you think this is about? Schism follows where gay pride enters The Church. That is quite well-documented is it not?

I see Jesus as welcoming anyone and everyone who hears his message and wants to follow Him.

He set down guidelines. Repenting is the first step to the process of following him. I see no affirming of sin do you?

It seems odd to me that I, an atheist, am trying to see the words of Jesus as a message of love and acceptance, while you seem determined to interpret it as a message of rejection.

I would have to say that "you, an atheist," makes quite the statement about what is supporting the gay agenda coming at the Church. I am definately determined. But it is to contend for the faith delivered only once to the saints.

I would expect an atheist, or any other disinterested outsider to at least see the inappropriateness of homosexuality being encouraged and celebrated in places called Christian Churches, since there is no such thing as same gender marriage ANYWHERE even hinted at in the New Testament. In fact, the only form of marriage ever described in the Bible is man and woman.

It would be incredible to see just once, an atheist agree with that.

By the way, the gay tree? It's fruit is the godless celebrating their encroachment into The Church? You do after all openly assert your atheist position and worldview.

You don't see any irony there? Any sort of statement that that may make for we Christians to hear?

Read the following please. It is from Peter to other Christians:

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.

- 1 Peter 4

Who is the "They" that Peter is referring to?

I don't think it is Christians that have repented. Do you?

Do you ever consider that you may simply be wrong and that you are doing your church, your faith more harm than good?

I am very much aware of that propaganda tactic employed against "me" very often.

Have you ever thought that you, an atheist, show what kind of people are supporting the gay pride agenda? Atheists are trying to support Christianity? The Evangelizing of the lost? The Preaching of the Gospel for the salvation of many? Please excuse me if I doubt that extremely highly. I think if harming the faith is the subject, we could address the atheist mission in society shouldn't we?

I find it absolutely fascinating watching this all go down. No pun intended. The purely antithetical aspect of gay pride as it is aimed squarely at The Church, should be glaring obvious to all. Especially educated secularists. But much of morality has been whitewashed by a permissiveness that has taken over society in many other aspects. It's no surprise that our excuse-laden society is succumbing to yet another lasciviousness and licentiousness demanding respect through neologism. It has taken incredible machinations for the pro homosexuality side to find some kind of bizaare and cunning way to demand the celebration of homosexality in places that have Christian titles in their letterhead and marquees.

I notice that you do not try to respond to my positions point for point but just offer an OP/Ed style reply.

Is there some reason you do not or cannot answer them?

The following, why do you think Paul would write something like this to other Christians? And by the way, they were "Greek" Christians he wrote this to:

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?

What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

I will live with them
and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

Therefore,

Come out from them
and be separate,
says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you.

And,

I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty.

2 Corinthians 6:14-18

Now think about this. I am asking "an atheist" to consider Christian matters.

How is that appropriate?