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?

[KCKID]

Then any preacher who marries a homosexual couple, is doing out of his own will.

Similarly so for those preachers who perform serial heterosexual marriages. It sure ain't scriptural.

The Bible is clear in what marriage is. Lord Jesus was clear in what marriage was.

Clear? Tell that to the close to 50% of 'God-ordained' marriages that end up in divorce, not to mention the huge percentage of those who remain married but live a life of misery. "And they lived happily ever after" is NOT the story-book ending of many of these so-called 'Bible-based' marriages that supposedly warm the cockles of one's heart so, Tex. Even if we had never heard the term 'homosexual', heterosexuals would have made a mockery out of what the Bible 'clearly states' marriage is. You and 99 need to remove your blinders and look at the REAL issues that affect your 'Bible-based' Churches!

It did not consist of two people of the same gender. This is just a friendship. It can't be more and will never be more.

Clearly you are wrong since 'gay' marriages DO exist. Some couples, in fact, have remained together for decades. Maybe you should tell them that their relationship can't be more and never will be more than just a friendship. They are obviously not aware of that.

[99percentatheism]

JohnPaul
99percentatheism wrote:

It's a debate topic. Like so many others. Your "who cares" routine could be played out in just about every thread invented.

Why not find some clear and direct scriptures that promote and celebrate homosexuals and homosexuality?

Or, if you want to stay in the secular realm, answer the question: Why has homosexuality been opposed for thousands of years by the majority of societies and civilizations, if homosexuality is such a standard and fine thing? It seems the very definition of a subculture.

JohnPaul:

There is no doubt that your Bible says that homosexuality is a sin and there is no doubt that it is a "subculture." That is not what is being debated here.

Read the OP again. That actually is the very basis of the need to define LGBT theology the way the OP does. It is simply being honest to the history of the issue.

What is being debated is your claim that it actually is a sin, and that some "real" god has declared it to be so. You have been asked several times to support your claim that your god really exists and that homosexuality actually is a sin. All you do is come up with more meaningless Biblical nonsense. That is what I say "so what?" to. Prove your god exists, or withdraw your claim.

The OP is not the urban legend of atheism versus reality. It is about "The Gay Denomination." It is not about the proof of God's existence. It is about the attempts of gay groups and their support apparatus to claim Christian justification for gay culture being implemented "in the Church." Which your first sentence shows that they cannot justify.

To say that my honest use of scripture is nonsense has no value to this thread. The LGBT position that gay marriage is appropriate through Christian theology is definately a position that can ONLY be proven or disproven through scripture. Whether or not you and someone else wants to challenge the reality that the God in the Bible doesn't exist, is for another thread. And I dare say, THAT subject is dragged throuigh this website ad infinitum.

LGBT activism, goals, and demands,which is SECULAR based,or some other religious expression, have now been presented as something that can be "equated and validated" in a Christian belief system, that, as the deamnd goes, fits the historic Christian faith.

But, as the OP posits, if they want to come up with a reigious component in Christian definition, to justify some aspect of Christian righteousness to their personal sexual behaviors and claim they are also compatible and supportable "Christian" religious beliefs, then THAT has to be proven through the "Christian" Bible and through "Christian" history since the founding of the Church.

This is not a tough task. Prove that gay culture, homosexuality and gay pride is compatible with historic Christian beliefs on sexuality and marriage as outlined in the Bible. If, "you don't care about the Bible," than the "so what?" actually fits in a comeback to you.

No one has been able to support the LGBT theological position that "the Bible" says homosexuality and same sex marriage is appropriate in any way, for Christians to believe in, support, condone, or celebrate. The OP does not oppose LGBT's obtaining whatever their demands are, it does though, challenge the claim that LGBT pride and social activism, cannot fit the historic definition of acceptable Christian practice.

You can claim to not care about that, you can jump on the athiest versus Christian bandwagon. But you shouldn't do that in this thread. Why? Because it is the LGBT's and their support apparatus that makes the demands that their sexual practices, social stances and religious beliefs can be defined as Christian.

Obviously, even you say that the LGBT position that homosexuality and the homosexual life IS not supportable from a Biblical perspective. I highlighted it in dark red.

So, then, you should be able to agree with the OP and present how homosexuality can be preached in either another religious expression, like Mormonism and Watch Tower theology does, or claim that gay denominations are just that, justified somehow with some kind of theological trappings to do so. This brings definition and clarification and well-defined boundaries to the issue.

[99percentatheism]

KCKID

What im saying is that this should not be an issue. In the 21st century, people have the right to live their own lives. Thats why I mentioned the dark ages, people did not have that right during that time. But this is 21st century america. Everyone should have the same rights. If the only reason we have to make same sex marriage illegal is the views of a religious group, then it should not be made illegal, the church and government are separate for this reason. This should not be an issue.

If only you can assure the billion-plus Christians on this planet that they will not be considered guility of a hate crime for preaching, teaching and believing and living, that homosexuality (a 19th century neologism but a historic behavior) is incompatible with a Bible-affirming Church and won't be harrassed and persecuted for opposing gay pride, then I'll agree with your positions.

But in seeing what was revealed towards Christians in the Chick-fil-A issue, Christians have very much to worry about.

I think your Jesus gave you a very simple solution to that problem: "Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you."

And, one can't go too far wrong if they apply this good advice to their lives.

It can't be applied to others if you are promoting sin to them. It's not designed to do that. That's not the kind of "do unto others" being defined.

This thread has been going on now for 118 pages. Some of it has been entertaining, but all you have actually said so far is that you believe that your Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. I think everyone here is pretty well convinced by now that you believe that, but So what? Why should anyone give a hoot what you believe or what your Bible says?

That pretty well sums it up. Who DOES give a hoot what some believe the Bible to say? I certainly don't give serious credibility to those who use misapplied scriptures with which to demean others. However, I DO find their ignorance to be annoying, especially since they believe that they are spot on. I'm as much a 'Bible scholar' as most of my 'Bible-quoting' peers ...perhaps more so.

Your opinion.

And, I find no place within the scriptures that states that homosexuality in any situation other than rape or idol worship rituals is a 'sin'.

You have simply rejected the many, many, many, many, examples that homosexuality is antithetical to the sexual holiness taught in the Bible for Christians.

BIG difference.

Even then in the latter example (the former example speaks for itself), it's the worshipping of false gods and all that that entails that is the actual 'sin'.

Malakos and arsenokoitai simply destroy your argument. Marriage as Jesus defined it simply destroys your argument. Jesus never mentioned idolatry in his depiction of an appropriate marriage. You spin the reality of it to a direction that simply cannot stand up to testing.

A good example of this can be found in Leviticus 18:21 (this is the scripture just before the notorious 'man-lying' verse 22) which says "Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord."

Molech worship? That would be more appropriate for a debate on abortion.

VERT appropriate.

Is God showing concern here for the children that are being sacrificed? Is God even saying that the killing of innocent children is a 'sin'? No, not at all! God is only concerned about the abomination of ANOTHER GOD (Molech) being worshipped ...to heck with the well-being of the kid!

Read Psalm 51 again.

That is similarly the case with regard to homosexuality being practiced in the name of a false god.

You have seen the Rainbow flag signifying to all what is believed under the banner? Calling all believers to its cause?

Why people such as 99 can't (or won't) piece this together mystifies me.

Because the use of the comparison is not justified. proper sexual behavior for Christians cannot fit the homosexual mold. Per so many texts that the whole of the New Testament could be called a clobber passage. In all of your offereings here in this thread, you haven't produced a single pirce of scripture to support the gay culture and its demands on the Church.

I sometimes think that he perhaps has an ulterior motive for pursuing this topic that has nothing to do with scripture . . .

You are mistaken.

Again.

I sometimes wonder why you keep at this with simply no justification to do so. You could though, be indespensible for a new religious movement based on gay culture and humanistic demands to justify its call to the masses. Actually, I think you've done that somewhat.

How is the follwing not what you demand?

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?

KID,

That is tolerance and diversity perfectly described is it not?

[Jax Agnesson]

Why don't the dwindling number of Christians who believe that God hates fags form their own denomination.
Oh, wait a minute...

[kayky]

99:
Is your refusal to respond to this post a concession to my arguments?

Kayky:
99, I find your attempt to twist the Bible's position on slavery both disingenuous and hypocritical.

99:
Ya don't say. Did you just now figure that out? I've know that since you employed the tactic.

Tactic? Pointing out to you what the Bible clearly says is a tactic? Isn't that the tactic you've been using throughout this thread?

Kayky: The Bible simply takes slavery for granted.

Yes. Reality is hard to escape.

It certainly is.

Kayky: Take the Ten Commandments, for example.

99:
With or without permission?

You realize what I'd be doing if I took them without permission? Violating one of them. At least.

A little jocularity from 99? I didn't think you had it in you.

Kayky: Imagine if God were to actually give us ten rules to live by.

99:
All I can do is imagine that. I have no time machine.

A time machine wouldn't help you. The whole Sinai thing? It never actually happened.

Kayky: Think of how much human suffering could have been prevented if God had simply banned slavery.

99:
Well, loking at what happened when "man" banned slavery, nothing. In fact, how many people willingly enslave themselves now? Ever been to a bankruptcy court hearing? They get out of debt and sign up for debt as soon as their credit rating gets better. And, it looks to me that humans like being "mastered" by other human beings all over the world.

People continue to rob and murder. Still God saw fit to say that these were sins.

Kayky: Instead God evidently thought it worse to covet your neighbor's slaves. These people are placed in the same category as oxen and donkeys. Is this the God you worship?

99:
It sounds like it. But you have not referenced any Biblical scripture so I can't make a definitive statement. There are lots of gods out there. Almost of of which I do not believe in. See my username?

Deuteronomy 5:21b

Neither shall you desire your neighbor's house, or field, or male or female slave, ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Kayky: So is slavery okay? If not, then the Bible can be wrong. Rip the scales from your eyes, man.

99:
There are lot's of contradictions in the Bible aboiut several things. It's why it rings as abslutely true from beginning to end. God for example, says he's going to wipe out Isreal, what we have come to know as the Jewish people, and then goes against what he says and allows them to get off the hook. It looks like we are dealing with reality in the Bible.

What does this have to do with the debate at hand?

Now, if you can show us ANYWHERE where there is contradiction on marriage being a man and a woman then a new denomination based on your Biblical theology should be well founded ansd should be able to thrive in its theology.

All I have to do is show that the Bible is wrong about one social issue, and your whole house of cards comes tumbling down. The Bible is wrong about slavery. It is also wrong about homosexuality.

Hmmmm, Mega Churches, Conservative Evangelcial Christians.

Huh???

[99percentatheism]

kayky
99:
Is your refusal to respond to this post a concession to my arguments?

It just means two things. I am a busy man and this angle of yours is more than likely a waste of time theologically. But I'll make the effort for the exegetical demolition derby it deserves.

kayky[/url]"]

]99percentatheism
Kayky:
99, I find your attempt to twist the Bible's position on slavery both disingenuous and hypocritical.

99:
Ya don't say. Did you just now figure that out? I've know that since you employed the tactic.

Tactic? Pointing out to you what the Bible clearly says is a tactic? Isn't that the tactic you've been using throughout this thread?

Kayky: The Bible simply takes slavery for granted.

Yes. Reality is hard to escape.

It certainly is.

Kayky: Take the Ten Commandments, for example.

99:
With or without permission?

You realize what I'd be doing if I took them without permission? Violating one of them. At least.

A little jocularity from 99? I didn't think you had it in you.

Kayky: Imagine if God were to actually give us ten rules to live by.

99:
All I can do is imagine that. I have no time machine.

A time machine wouldn't help you. The whole Sinai thing? It never actually happened.

Kayky: Think of how much human suffering could have been prevented if God had simply banned slavery.

99:
Well, loking at what happened when "man" banned slavery, nothing. In fact, how many people willingly enslave themselves now? Ever been to a bankruptcy court hearing? They get out of debt and sign up for debt as soon as their credit rating gets better. And, it looks to me that humans like being "mastered" by other human beings all over the world.

People continue to rob and murder. Still God saw fit to say that these were sins.

Kayky: Instead God evidently thought it worse to covet your neighbor's slaves. These people are placed in the same category as oxen and donkeys. Is this the God you worship?

99:
It sounds like it. But you have not referenced any Biblical scripture so I can't make a definitive statement. There are lots of gods out there. Almost of of which I do not believe in. See my username?

Deuteronomy 5:21b

Neither shall you desire your neighbor's house, or field, or male or female slave, ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

This may shatter your position for supporting gay marriage even more than anything. It is referencing the desire for . . .

Kayky: So is slavery okay? If not, then the Bible can be wrong. Rip the scales from your eyes, man.

Why would the Biblical stand on slavery make the Bible have an error? It is what it is.

99:
There are lot's of contradictions in the Bible aboiut several things. It's why it rings as abslutely true from beginning to end. God for example, says he's going to wipe out Isreal, what we have come to know as the Jewish people, and then goes against what he says and allows them to get off the hook. It looks like we are dealing with reality in the Bible.

What does this have to do with the debate at hand?

The Bible deals with things in reality. But notice that marriage was reaffirmed by Jesus and every other voice where it is referenced IN the New Testament? That is why the OP is so honest and worthy.

Now, if you can show us ANYWHERE where there is contradiction on marriage being a man and a woman then a new denomination based on your Biblical theology should be well founded ansd should be able to thrive in its theology.

All I have to do is show that the Bible is wrong about one social issue, and your whole house of cards comes tumbling down. The Bible is wrong about slavery. It is also wrong about homosexuality.

Hmmmm, Mega Churches, Conservative Evangelcial Christians.

Huh???

In YOUR worldvew you can try to tear down the bible using secular morality, or
social issues" if you'ld like. But, alas, you will pass away, hopefully after a long and productive life, without ever denting Biblical truth.

[kayky]

99:

It just means two things. I am a busy man and this angle of yours is more than likely a waste of time theologically. But I'll make the effort for the demolition derby it deserves.

Translation: 99 has no answer to my argument.

Deuteronomy 5:21b

Neither shall you desire your neighbor's house, or field, or male or female slave, ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

This may shatter your position for supporting gay marriage even more than anything. It is referencing the desire for...

I don't know what point you think you're making here. This is one of the Ten Commandments, supposedly etched into stone by God himself. Evidently God views human slaves as mere property, no better than livestock.

In YOUR worldvew you can try to tear down the bible using secular morality, or
social issues" if you'ld like. But, alas, you will pass away, hopefully after a long and productive life, without ever denting Biblical truth.

Being honest about what the Bible says is not tearing it down. I have raised an honest issue, and you continue to dodge it. There are only two possible resolutions:

1. The Bible is never wrong; therefore, human slavery is perfectly moral.

OR

2. The Bible is wrong about slavery; therefore, the Bible could be wrong about other things as well.

Until you address this issue head-on without hedging, there is a great big gaping hole in your argument.

[Tex]

Then any preacher who marries a homosexual couple, is doing out of his own will.

Similarly so for those preachers who perform serial heterosexual marriages. It sure ain't scriptural.

The Bible is clear in what marriage is. Lord Jesus was clear in what marriage was.

Clear? Tell that to the close to 50% of 'God-ordained' marriages that end up in divorce, not to mention the huge percentage of those who remain married but live a life of misery. "And they lived happily ever after" is NOT the story-book ending of many of these so-called 'Bible-based' marriages that supposedly warm the cockles of one's heart so, Tex. Even if we had never heard the term 'homosexual', heterosexuals would have made a mockery out of what the Bible 'clearly states' marriage is. You and 99 need to remove your blinders and look at the REAL issues that affect your 'Bible-based' Churches!

It did not consist of two people of the same gender. This is just a friendship. It can't be more and will never be more.

Clearly you are wrong since 'gay' marriages DO exist. Some couples, in fact, have remained together for decades. Maybe you should tell them that their relationship can't be more and never will be more than just a friendship. They are obviously not aware of that.

You're just complaining because you want the bond of a women and Man to the same as that of two people of the same gender.

That is lie. The truth is the truth. You cannot call the bond of a women and man the same as that of two people of the same gender. Why is it so hard for you to understand. It's common sense.

[HeIsLegend83]

Then any preacher who marries a homosexual couple, is doing out of his own will.

Similarly so for those preachers who perform serial heterosexual marriages. It sure ain't scriptural.

The Bible is clear in what marriage is. Lord Jesus was clear in what marriage was.

Clear? Tell that to the close to 50% of 'God-ordained' marriages that end up in divorce, not to mention the huge percentage of those who remain married but live a life of misery. "And they lived happily ever after" is NOT the story-book ending of many of these so-called 'Bible-based' marriages that supposedly warm the cockles of one's heart so, Tex. Even if we had never heard the term 'homosexual', heterosexuals would have made a mockery out of what the Bible 'clearly states' marriage is. You and 99 need to remove your blinders and look at the REAL issues that affect your 'Bible-based' Churches!

It did not consist of two people of the same gender. This is just a friendship. It can't be more and will never be more.

Clearly you are wrong since 'gay' marriages DO exist. Some couples, in fact, have remained together for decades. Maybe you should tell them that their relationship can't be more and never will be more than just a friendship. They are obviously not aware of that.

You're just complaining because you want the bond of a women and Man to the same as that of two people of the same gender.

That is lie. The truth is the truth. You cannot call the bond of a women and man the same as that of two people of the same gender. Why is it so hard for you to understand. It's common sense.

The bond between ANY two individuals of ANY gender is not the same. Who are you to claim to understand the romantic bond between two people of the same gender? Have you experienced it?

[KCKID]

JohnPaul
99percentatheism wrote:

It's a debate topic. Like so many others. Your "who cares" routine could be played out in just about every thread invented.

Why not find some clear and direct scriptures that promote and celebrate homosexuals and homosexuality?

Or, if you want to stay in the secular realm, answer the question: Why has homosexuality been opposed for thousands of years by the majority of societies and civilizations, if homosexuality is such a standard and fine thing? It seems the very definition of a subculture.

JohnPaul:

There is no doubt that your Bible says that homosexuality is a sin and there is no doubt that it is a "subculture." That is not what is being debated here.

Read the OP again. That actually is the very basis of the need to define LGBT theology the way the OP does. It is simply being honest to the history of the issue.

Probably the majority of people who partake in a superficial reading of the Bible texts that pertain to homosexuality WILL arrive at the notion that the Bible 'undoubtedly' states that homosexuality is a sin. That, however, is not the case. A more thorough reading will tell a different story. In ALL cases these texts are NOT referring to homosexuality as we understand it today but to homosexual RAPE and IDOL WORSHIP PRACTICES. That one does not see this indicates that, 1. they simply don't understand the context of those particular scriptures, or 2. they DO understand the context of those scriptures but SO desire that 'God' support their OWN prejudice/s that they would rather perpetuate a lie.

That said, I can't believe that 99 is in ignorance of the accurate definitions of those 'clobber texts'. Therefore, I can only arrive at one conclusion and I've already received a mod warning previously for having used what I believe is the appropriate word for that conclusion.

How about debating those texts, 99 - and those texts alone without all of the additional 'fluff'? After all, it's those particular scriptures that have led you to condemn homosexuality and to suggest such people should form their own denomination rather than pollute 'the Church' and actually rub shoulders with 'the holy ones' such as yourself.