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?

[cnorman18]

....Oh, and talking about history:

Mattachine Society

The Homosexual Revolt

The May 1959 issue of the Mattachine Review, an American homophile magazine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattachine_Society

Just an observation; I went to that link and saw nothing objectionable. The "homosexual revolt" referred to on the magazine cover doubtless referred to the revolt against homophobic hatred and bigotry. I don't see what you found there that was anything to be outraged about.

[KCKID]

....Oh, and talking about history:

Mattachine Society

The Homosexual Revolt

The May 1959 issue of the Mattachine Review, an American homophile magazine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattachine_Society

Just an observation; I went to that link and saw nothing objectionable. The "homosexual revolt" referred to on the magazine cover doubtless referred to the revolt against homophobic hatred and bigotry. I don't see what you found there that was anything to be outraged about.

Me neither. The proverb 'a drowning man will clutch at a straw' springs to mind whenever I read 99percentatheism's posts. Few of them, in fact, have any relevance to the topic at all.

[99percentatheism]

....Oh, and talking about history:

Mattachine Society

The Homosexual Revolt

The May 1959 issue of the Mattachine Review, an American homophile magazine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattachine_Society

Just an observation; I went to that link and saw nothing objectionable. The "homosexual revolt" referred to on the magazine cover doubtless referred to the revolt against homophobic hatred and bigotry. I don't see what you found there that was anything to be outraged about.

Me neither. The proverb 'a drowning man will clutch at a straw' springs to mind whenever I read 99percentatheism's posts. Few of them, in fact, have any relevance to the topic at all.

Then just produce any scripture that is clearly and UNambiguously pro homosexuality.

You'll have to write your own bible.

[99percentatheism]

....Oh, and talking about history:

Mattachine Society

The Homosexual Revolt

The May 1959 issue of the Mattachine Review, an American homophile magazine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattachine_Society

Just an observation; I went to that link and saw nothing objectionable. The "homosexual revolt" referred to on the magazine cover doubtless referred to the revolt against homophobic hatred and bigotry. I don't see what you found there that was anything to be outraged about.

I'm not outraged about the gay agenda. If anything, it fascinates me to see how societies get licentious. Lascivious licentious. I have never really believed that Sodom and Gomorrah were myth or metaphor. Nothing drives a pitiless population like gratifying lusts.

The fruit of their labor in Mattachine? Was the AIDS "epidemic in the gay community."

I also find it interesting that the founders were communists.

[99percentatheism]

Clownboat

Clownboat

Which "the Bible" contends against. I have asked ateists on several occasions to read the Bible to see if they can find any references to support of gay marriage or homosexuality anywhere in the New Testament and they have been honest and said no. But they did say they found just the opposite.

I can't find any reference in the Bible that supports "genital piercings". Therefore, the god of the Bible is against "genital piercings" and anyone that gets a genital piercing should start their own denomination.

Genital piercings do not alter and redefine marriage. Nor does it alter the negativity towards homosexuality and homosexuals in the New Testament ". . . such were some of you.". Jesus defined marriage, and there was no same gender coupling even hinted at. He referenced God in the beginning and brought the formulation into the New Testament: Man and woman. Everywhere marriage, husbands and wives is mentioned, it is man and woman. And of course, Jesus never said a word about changing the abomination/detestable definition of homosexual sex acts. He was Torah observant.

Let the readers note that 99% does not seem to be consistent with his "find it in the Bible stance".

It's like being in an episode of the Twilight Zone reading a comment like that. My consistency on my stance on the Bible is ubiquitous.

Insert all sorts of things in for "genital piercings". Slippery slop if: Bible does not support "X", therefore people that do "X" should start their own denomination.

The slippery slope is no longer theory. Gay marriage and teaching gay pride in our schools shows that the slippery slope fact is realized.

The slippery slope is the stance that "if it's not in the Bible, it is not ok". It had nothing to do with teaching gay pride or gay marriage.

The so-called "gay agenda" is pure reality. It's not just a list for groceries, it is a full scale change of morality. And when pointed at Christian truth and the New Testament testimony, it is an afront with no longer a pretense to hide the agenda.

Religious paranoia - Here the patients suffer from a permanent delusion of a primarily religious nature.

Let's see, those that use their digestive tract, or manmade phallic substitutes as sexual organs are not mentally misguided, but Christians that have accurately chronicled the step by step advance of the gay agenda from its ever-increasing encroachment on society (from historical organizations such as the Mattachine Society) AND into the Church - via neologism and academia - are somehow the mentally ill?

Twilight Zone episode here we come.

He for example believes, that he is the messenger of God who has been sent to the world to propagate some religion.
http://www.depression-guide.com/paranoia.htm

That website may exist, but there is no foundation of reality to your charge against me. I just agree with what the New Testament clearly says. Anmd please note, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. That leaves it in the bad behavior category.

Jesus, did tell us to love our fellow man as much as we love ourselves though. "I" don't think you are doing that and "I" don't thing Jesus would approve of what you are doing. That is probably why "I" see it as you using the Bible as a weapon.

The sword of political correctness used against a Christian?

Alinsky's children doing what he taught them.

Jesus didn't preach that love was an anything goes proposition. In fact it is just the opposite. If you "love" someone, you preach repentance and forgiveness. He detailed that those that would not repent were to be defined as such and left to their own devices. Jesus never said a word about celebrating sin and sinning as if it were not sin and sinning but was a congenital condition that could be excused away. In fact, your judgmentalism towards me shows that even you see limits to the Gospel message. And any observation of the liberal perspective shows a great deal of judgmentalism, it is just rather convoluted.when compared to the New Testament witness.

My thought remains:

Jesus, did tell us to love our fellow man as much as we love ourselves though. "I" don't think you are doing that and "I" don't think Jesus would approve of what you are doing. That is probably why "I" see it as you using the Bible as a weapon.

You don't see the irony here that it IS YOU that is claiming messenger of God status?

Kinda humorous to point out.

Oh, and talking about history:

Mattachine Society

The Homosexual Revolt

The May 1959 issue of the Mattachine Review, an American homophile magazine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattachine_Society

I would like to remind the readers of this real life happening:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/do ... 497556.htm

She looks like a woman, acts like a woman and got married as a wife. But she couldn't bear children because she is actually a man.

A Jiangsu native who always thought she was a woman - and so did everybody else - actually had two hidden testicles, no ovaries and no uterus, devastating her life.

Her congenital anomaly was surgically removed, but she cannot bear children and a chromosome examination confirmed that "she" is actually a "he."

The case is one in 10,000.

You're crazy if you expect me to believe that a god would create 1 out of 10,000 people with hidden testicles and send homosexuals to hell.

What's the matter? Got nothing to say in regards to the article I presented?
What would you do in her/his shoes? Would you remain married?

Why would a god create people like this and then call them an abomination and then send them to a fiery hell? I don't think he would, thus one more strike against your claims.

Care to address this piece of evidence that goes against what you claim? What if you, or someone like you went to the doctor tomorrow and found out that in reality you have a man member, but upon further examination, you also have a uterus and your chromosomes confirm that you are really a women?

Would you divorce your wife and try to find a man, or would you continue to live as a self described abomination? Or would you just prefer to ignore this and pretend it doesn't happen to real people so you can continue your assault on the homosexuals?

You want to base the celebration of gay culture on a genitalia deformed individual?

Doesn't add up in the logic column to join you on that. What it boils down to, is that those born with un-deformed genitlia have no excuse for using them for deviant sexual behavior.

[99percentatheism]

....Oh, and talking about history:

Mattachine Society

The Homosexual Revolt

The May 1959 issue of the Mattachine Review, an American homophile magazine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattachine_Society

Just an observation; I went to that link and saw nothing objectionable. The "homosexual revolt" referred to on the magazine cover doubtless referred to the revolt against homophobic hatred and bigotry. I don't see what you found there that was anything to be outraged about.

Harry Hay is the poster "person" for licentiousness and infidelity when contrasted to the message of sexual morality in the New Testament testimony. Just find one of his interviews about indiscrimate "sex in the bushes." And I must believe that even you (through observation) see that infidelity and immorality still are denounced in Christian truth. And like the NT witness testifies to, there is also no such thing as same gender marriage promoted either. That exists as an other-worldy belief from the clear picture of Christian reality as detailed in the New Testament. "Sola Scriptura" wise.

Nothing to be outraged about(?), until his movement and goals find their way into the Christian Church.

Obviously this kind of person (these kinds of people) was already at work in the early Church and have always been something to be concerned about:

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

- Jude 1

[Clownboat]

Clownboat

Clownboat

Which "the Bible" contends against. I have asked ateists on several occasions to read the Bible to see if they can find any references to support of gay marriage or homosexuality anywhere in the New Testament and they have been honest and said no. But they did say they found just the opposite.

I can't find any reference in the Bible that supports "genital piercings". Therefore, the god of the Bible is against "genital piercings" and anyone that gets a genital piercing should start their own denomination.

Genital piercings do not alter and redefine marriage. Nor does it alter the negativity towards homosexuality and homosexuals in the New Testament ". . . such were some of you.". Jesus defined marriage, and there was no same gender coupling even hinted at. He referenced God in the beginning and brought the formulation into the New Testament: Man and woman. Everywhere marriage, husbands and wives is mentioned, it is man and woman. And of course, Jesus never said a word about changing the abomination/detestable definition of homosexual sex acts. He was Torah observant.

Let the readers note that 99% does not seem to be consistent with his "find it in the Bible stance".

It's like being in an episode of the Twilight Zone reading a comment like that. My consistency on my stance on the Bible is ubiquitous.

Insert all sorts of things in for "genital piercings". Slippery slop if: Bible does not support "X", therefore people that do "X" should start their own denomination.

The slippery slope is no longer theory. Gay marriage and teaching gay pride in our schools shows that the slippery slope fact is realized.

The slippery slope is the stance that "if it's not in the Bible, it is not ok". It had nothing to do with teaching gay pride or gay marriage.

The so-called "gay agenda" is pure reality. It's not just a list for groceries, it is a full scale change of morality. And when pointed at Christian truth and the New Testament testimony, it is an afront with no longer a pretense to hide the agenda.

Religious paranoia - Here the patients suffer from a permanent delusion of a primarily religious nature.

Let's see, those that use their digestive tract, or manmade phallic substitutes as sexual organs are not mentally misguided, but Christians that have accurately chronicled the step by step advance of the gay agenda from its ever-increasing encroachment on society (from historical organizations such as the Mattachine Society) AND into the Church - via neologism and academia - are somehow the mentally ill?

Twilight Zone episode here we come.

He for example believes, that he is the messenger of God who has been sent to the world to propagate some religion.
http://www.depression-guide.com/paranoia.htm

That website may exist, but there is no foundation of reality to your charge against me. I just agree with what the New Testament clearly says. Anmd please note, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. That leaves it in the bad behavior category.

Jesus, did tell us to love our fellow man as much as we love ourselves though. "I" don't think you are doing that and "I" don't thing Jesus would approve of what you are doing. That is probably why "I" see it as you using the Bible as a weapon.

The sword of political correctness used against a Christian?

Alinsky's children doing what he taught them.

Jesus didn't preach that love was an anything goes proposition. In fact it is just the opposite. If you "love" someone, you preach repentance and forgiveness. He detailed that those that would not repent were to be defined as such and left to their own devices. Jesus never said a word about celebrating sin and sinning as if it were not sin and sinning but was a congenital condition that could be excused away. In fact, your judgmentalism towards me shows that even you see limits to the Gospel message. And any observation of the liberal perspective shows a great deal of judgmentalism, it is just rather convoluted.when compared to the New Testament witness.

My thought remains:

Jesus, did tell us to love our fellow man as much as we love ourselves though. "I" don't think you are doing that and "I" don't think Jesus would approve of what you are doing. That is probably why "I" see it as you using the Bible as a weapon.

You don't see the irony here that it IS YOU that is claiming messenger of God status?

Kinda humorous to point out.

Oh, and talking about history:

Mattachine Society

The Homosexual Revolt

The May 1959 issue of the Mattachine Review, an American homophile magazine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattachine_Society

I would like to remind the readers of this real life happening:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/do ... 497556.htm

She looks like a woman, acts like a woman and got married as a wife. But she couldn't bear children because she is actually a man.

A Jiangsu native who always thought she was a woman - and so did everybody else - actually had two hidden testicles, no ovaries and no uterus, devastating her life.

Her congenital anomaly was surgically removed, but she cannot bear children and a chromosome examination confirmed that "she" is actually a "he."

The case is one in 10,000.

You're crazy if you expect me to believe that a god would create 1 out of 10,000 people with hidden testicles and send homosexuals to hell.

What's the matter? Got nothing to say in regards to the article I presented?
What would you do in her/his shoes? Would you remain married?

Why would a god create people like this and then call them an abomination and then send them to a fiery hell? I don't think he would, thus one more strike against your claims.

Care to address this piece of evidence that goes against what you claim? What if you, or someone like you went to the doctor tomorrow and found out that in reality you have a man member, but upon further examination, you also have a uterus and your chromosomes confirm that you are really a women?

Would you divorce your wife and try to find a man, or would you continue to live as a self described abomination? Or would you just prefer to ignore this and pretend it doesn't happen to real people so you can continue your assault on the homosexuals?

You want to base the celebration of gay culture on a genitalia deformed individual?

Doesn't add up in the logic column to join you on that. What it boils down to, is that those born with un-deformed genitlia have no excuse for using them for deviant sexual behavior.

Dodge noted.

4th request?

Would you divorce your wife and try to find a man, or would you continue to live as a self described abomination? Or would you just prefer to ignore this and pretend it doesn't happen to real people so you can continue your assault on the homosexuals?

[cnorman18]

....Oh, and talking about history:

Mattachine Society

The Homosexual Revolt

The May 1959 issue of the Mattachine Review, an American homophile magazine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattachine_Society

Just an observation; I went to that link and saw nothing objectionable. The "homosexual revolt" referred to on the magazine cover doubtless referred to the revolt against homophobic hatred and bigotry. I don't see what you found there that was anything to be outraged about.

Harry Hay is the poster "person" for licentiousness and infidelity when contrasted to the message of sexual morality in the New Testament testimony. Just find one of his interviews about indiscrimate "sex in the bushes." And I must believe that even you (through observation) see that infidelity and immorality still are denounced in Christian truth. And like the NT witness testifies to, there is also no such thing as same gender marriage promoted either. That exists as an other-worldy belief from the clear picture of Christian reality as detailed in the New Testament. "Sola Scriptura" wise.

Nothing to be outraged about(?), until his movement and goals find their way into the Christian Church.

Obviously this kind of person (these kinds of people) was already at work in the early Church and have always been something to be concerned about:

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

- Jude 1

Again, just an observation: I didn't see any reference to religion at that link at all. None.

[otseng]

Harry Hay is the poster "person" for licentiousness and infidelity when contrasted to the message of sexual morality in the New Testament testimony. Just find one of his interviews about indiscrimate "sex in the bushes."

Moderator Comment

You'll need to provide direct links to substantiate your claim. Otherwise, it would be considered to be slander.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 1682:

Nothing drives a pitiless population like gratifying lusts.

Or sanctimonious pride.