Civil Debates on Christianity and Religions

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Reply to topic
99percentatheism
First Post
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2014 2:03 pm  Produce "Pro gay (or LGBT)" scripture Reply with quote

Very simple.:The movement to homosexualize The Church, to celebrate and encourage people to engage in homosexuality, including the redefining of marriage even, has been going on for a few decades now. With of course the expected schism by those Christians that cannot be part of that.

So, simply, for those that support homosexuality, "gay pride," and those that define themselves by the sex act or desire for it (Gays, Lesbians, and Bi-Sexuals), produce the open and unambiguous scriptural support New Testament or Old Testament . . . for "Christians" to engage in, support and promote homosexuality.
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 41: Thu Oct 09, 2014 12:27 am
Reply
Re: Missed?

Like this post
DanieltheDragon wrote:

[Replying to post 36 by 99percentatheism]

Why are you denying Jesus's instruction to accept all people? I gave you several verses. I acknowledge the bible sees gay love as a sin but it also sees lying as a sin and a wide variety of other things yet you still allow the church to accept others why does gay sex get excluded


Actually, while there is more than an element of ambiguity regarding the ‘thimble-full’ of so-called 'clobber texts' of the Bible, it would appear that NONE of them either condemn or, indeed, refer at all to 'gay love' as you called it. I happen to be in agreement with an increasing number of Bible scholars who believe (based on Bible exegesis and theological analysis of the scriptures in question) that ALL references to homosexuality refer to pagan idolatry and the worship practices associated with idolatry. This determination is not merely based on wishful thinking - what would be the point? – but rather, apparently, fact.

I realize that I've said this before but it does warrant repeating for as long as it takes to become clear. Until relatively modern times the Bible was not used to condemn homosexuality as it is today. I guess the main reason is because the words "homosexual/homosexuality" did not exist in the original manuscripts of scripture OR the 1611 King James Bible which is all anyone had. It wasn't until 1946 that the word/s appeared in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Moreover, when the term/s DID appear in the RSV the definition of homosexual, i.e. one who is sexually attracted to another of the same gender, took on a different definition …it became equated with 'sin'! This is both a corruption of the word 'homosexual' itself as well as a corruption of the original texts of scripture which have no Hebrew or Greek equivalent for the "English" term that we now use.

I've thrown out the challenge a number of times for those who believe that the Bible condemns 'across-the-board' homosexuality to offer biblical proof that the Bible 'clobber texts' DON'T refer to idolatry and male shrine temple prostitution. So far, no one has accepted that challenge. Furthermore, just to indicate how far reaching scriptural ignorance extends, especially in regard to this subject, the term "sodomite" is used by countless Christians on a regular basis to aim at and to demean homosexuals. NONE of these people appear to know that this word, "sodomite", according to Strong's KJV Concordance, has nothing to do with homosexuality per se but is a reference to "a quasi sacred person, i.e. a male devotee by prostitution to licentious idolatry."

Another resource, the NAS Concordance, defines ‘sodomite’ as: “a male cult temple prostitute” The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon defines it as: “masculine temple prostitute" Literally, the term ‘qadesh’ or ‘sodomite’ refers to male prostitution in pagan religious rites. By the very Hebrew definition of the word, we see that it does not refer to a homosexual, but rather, male religious prostitution - either heterosexually and/or homosexually - since the Bible makes NO mention of either.

So, the next time 'you' (generic term) hears a Christian refer to a gay person as 'a sodomite' you are officially entitled to brand them as not only a bigot but also as an 'ignorant bigot'!

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 42: Thu Oct 09, 2014 2:06 am
Reply

Like this post
Warning Moderator Warning

99percentatheism,

This is a civil debating site. As this is a debating site participants should expect to have their values questioned and debated and not taken for granted and it is up to us to argue why we think as we do. We should be allowed to make our points and have felt we had a conversation and not a fight.

The following remarks are just a sample of phrases that are considered uncivil or violate rules on this forum:

- When all else fails, the ad hom is the last ditch effort of the ideologue to make a stand?

- The tactic you are employing is old hat.

- This tactic of an ad hom attack on me (?), do you think this is my first rodeo with gay pride proponents?

- My skin is well worn with the scars of so many experiences with tactics such as yours that the swipes are quite painless.

- It needs asking, why do you demand that Christians celebrate sin and sinners instead of preaching repentance and forgiveness?

It's not how we want debate to proceed on this forum.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 43: Thu Oct 09, 2014 5:43 am
Reply
Re: Missed?

Like this post
KCKID
DanieltheDragon wrote:

[Replying to post 36 by 99percentatheism]

Why are you denying Jesus's instruction to accept all people? I gave you several verses. I acknowledge the bible sees gay love as a sin but it also sees lying as a sin and a wide variety of other things yet you still allow the church to accept others why does gay sex get excluded


Quote:
Actually, while there is more than an element of ambiguity regarding the ‘thimble-full’ of so-called 'clobber texts' of the Bible, it would appear that NONE of them either condemn or, indeed, refer at all to 'gay love' as you called it.


Jesus never condemned Sharia Law. He never condemned pornography. He never condemned heroin usage. He never condemned Nuclear weapons. He never condemned wife swapping.

And on and on.

The line of reasoning that whatever Jesus never mentioned anything about can somehow make it approved by Jesus can be taken in any direction.

Quote:
I happen to be in agreement with an increasing number of Bible scholars who believe (based on Bible exegesis and theological analysis of the scriptures in question) that ALL references to homosexuality refer to pagan idolatry and the worship practices associated with idolatry. This determination is not merely based on wishful thinking - what would be the point? – but rather, apparently, fact.


Many heretical movements, if not all of them, base their stands on some parts of scripture.

The FACT IS that Jesus did detail and reaffirm the detail that "marriage" is man and woman/husband and wife. And there is not one shred of support or even any indication of a future time that there would be support for homosexuality in Christian life. Or, that would be somehow made acceptable in The Church. As history describes, the "gay pride" movement is categorically of a secular nature.

Jesus never said a word about Atheism or humanism. Does that somehow make atheism and humanism now acceptable Christian doctrine?

Quote:
I realize that I've said this before but it does warrant repeating for as long as it takes to become clear. Until relatively modern times the Bible was not used to condemn homosexuality as it is today. I guess the main reason is because the words "homosexual/homosexuality" did not exist in the original manuscripts of scripture OR the 1611 King James Bible which is all anyone had. It wasn't until 1946 that the word/s appeared in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Moreover, when the term/s DID appear in the RSV the definition of homosexual, i.e. one who is sexually attracted to another of the same gender, took on a different definition …it became equated with 'sin'! This is both a corruption of the word 'homosexual' itself as well as a corruption of the original texts of scripture which have no Hebrew or Greek equivalent for the "English" term that we now use.


The very activity of same gender sex acts were totally common to Christians in Roman times. A matter of "the world and its ways." It is abundantly clear that Paul, "the Apostles to the Gentiles . . ." had an unimaginable amount of time to "affirm" homosexuality AND those that engaged in it, as completely condoned in "The Church." History shows otherwise. That it is a behavior no different than joining ones members to a prostitute.

Where is the utter and unambiguous celebration of gay marriage in the Bible? Where is the "pro gay texts" that can even slightly resemble something that could be brought into today's vernacular? Where are there gender-neutral descriptions of a married couple?

Quote:
I've thrown out the challenge a number of times for those who believe that the Bible condemns 'across-the-board' homosexuality to offer biblical proof that the Bible 'clobber texts' DON'T refer to idolatry and male shrine temple prostitution. So far, no one has accepted that challenge.


Jesus literally refused to condemn the adulteress woman "caught in the very act," and never said a word about couples that approve of adultery as being inappropriate? So, does the silence in the Bible about swingers make swinging condoned because Jesus "never said a word about swinging?" Jesus never mentioned anything about many, many, many, many, many, many, behaviors that are not acceptable in Christian life !!!!

Does that give licensee to "ANYTHING GOES THAT JESUS NEVER MENTIONED?"

Quote:
Furthermore, just to indicate how far reaching scriptural ignorance extends, especially in regard to this subject, the term "sodomite" is used by countless Christians on a regular basis to aim at and to demean homosexuals. NONE of these people appear to know that this word, "sodomite", according to Strong's KJV Concordance, has nothing to do with homosexuality per se but is a reference to "a quasi sacred person, i.e. a male devotee by prostitution to licentious idolatry."


Jesus never mentioned joining ones "members" to a prostitute. A term Paul used to obviously mean having sex with a prostitute.

Well, then, since Jesus never mentioned paying for and having sex with prostitutes, that somehow makes the act approved? It now makes paying fo a prostitute Christian doctrine?

Quote:
Another resource, the NAS Concordance, defines ‘sodomite’ as: “a male cult temple prostitute” The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon defines it as: “masculine temple prostitute" Literally, the term ‘qadesh’ or ‘sodomite’ refers to male prostitution in pagan religious rites. By the very Hebrew definition of the word, we see that it does not refer to a homosexual, but rather, male religious prostitution - either heterosexually and/or homosexually - since the Bible makes NO mention of either.

So, the next time 'you' (generic term) hears a Christian refer to a gay person as 'a sodomite' you are officially entitled to brand them as not only a bigot but also as an 'ignorant bigot'


The Bible makes NO MENTION of a man's husband. It makes no mention of a woman's wife. It makes no mention of acceptable same gender sexual behavior. And certainly "Jesus never said a word about any of that."

Why would He? Not one aspect of it is part of Christian life.

But by the logic you are asserting, anything not mentioned by Jesus can be demanded as being acceptable Christian doctrine?

That doesn't just leads to a very ambiguous Christian truth, it leads to anything goes. And the Gospels and the rest of the writings in the New Testament show that anything absolutely does not go and that there limits and parameters to what is and what isn't acceptable "Christians actions and beliefs.

To say that the word "homosexual," invented in the 19th century, is not the same behavior that Nero engaged in with his male wives during the lifetime of Peter, Paul and Jude is not in keeping with reality.

Quote:
And there needs to be addressed the fact that there are NO pro same gender sexual behavior texts anywhere in scripture.


Same gender sexual behavior is now known as homosexuality.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 44: Thu Oct 09, 2014 6:51 am
Reply
Re: Missed?

Like this post
[Replying to post 43 by 99percentatheism]

Quote:
Jesus never condemned Sharia Law. He never condemned pornography. He never condemned heroin usage. He never condemned Nuclear weapons. He never condemned wife swapping.

You're right. There was no need for him to because it's obvious it's the individuals decision to decids if it's right or wrong. Since he didn't condemn it, why do YOU condemn it?
It's not YOUR place, or any Christian's place, to dictate what Jesus SHOULD have said, or what he MEANT on a certain topic.
It's not YOUR place, or any Christian's place, to 'fill in' what Jesus SHOULD have said or MEANT on a topic he didn't discuss.
Why not, if he didn't mention it, you let the individual decide on it? Where do you get the authority to decide anything personal like this for anyone else because you CLAIM to be a Christian?
You have ZERO authority to speak for God in these matters. And it's not just you but NO ONE on the planet has the authority to speak on behalf of God (or any god) on personal matters such as these.
The only gatekeeper for these personal things of God is GOD.
We all have our opinions. Great!
But claiming "I'm right and you're wrong and I know this to be true because I'm a Christian" borders on a narcissistic personality disorder to me.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 45: Thu Oct 09, 2014 7:43 am
Reply
Re: Missed?

Like this post
Wordleymaster1
[Replying to post 35 by 99percentatheism]

Quote:
Just to promote, encourage and celebrate per secular law.
How does legal rights (assuming that's what you mean by law) makes you celebrate anything?
Quote:
The ANYTHING GOES of secular morality is what is turning people away from religion.


Quote:
Prove that this anything goes morality is turning people away from religion with data and facts.


What IS secularism producing in society?* It sure looks like anything goes. But I'll retract that because obviously Christian morality doesn't go in secular places right? But many, many, many, other behaviors do.

Quote:
Personally I've seen more people turn their noses at a religion that allows its priest to touch young boys with little to no punishment than a 'anything goes' thinking.


Male "Priests?"

You do know what same gender sexuality is called now in the 21st century?

Quote:
But I'd like to see your proof to support your claim



[Replying to post 36 by 99percentatheism]

Quote:
The movement that demands that they were born with the right to sin and to promote it? DEMAND IT?


Quote:
It's only promoting to those who fear it.


OK. Thank you. Any Christian should fear the promoting of sin. Especially IN The Church. Which YOU seem to agree with. Otherwise you wouldn't have sited homosexual molestation by "Priests" against boys.

Quote:
To those who understand it it's simply life.

Sin is an individual responsibility. With your free will, you should be able to see that, yes?


On both that answer is yes. And both bear the consequences of that free will choice.

Quote:
No one is forcing you to accept anything. Don't like it? Protest it. Don't do it. Once gay people are accepted into Christianity (and YES it's happening even as you read this) you will be on the fringe much like the WBBC if you're not already. Which is fine with me.


The WBC is a dozen or so people. The opposition to the gay agdenda is about a billion or so Christians. Hardly a fringe and of course those billion or so are supported by the Apostles and Jesus.

Quote:
To the topic of the thread: scripture is open for interpertation. How you interpert it may not be how someone else does. How we EACH interpert it is OUR responsibility.


Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons tried the same thing as these gay theologians. And The Church is standing as it always has. If anything is relegated to the fringe sir, it is gay theology.

Quote:
You may not like it, but that's the way it is.


I don't like it. I am a Christian. And without doubt the way it is has never changed and never will.

Quote:
You're free to stomp your foot and scream about how wrong everyone but you is - at least in the USA. And that too is fine. But you're in for a long life of 'foot stomping and screaming' in this area.


Joined with over two billion other feet and that is a response that even the gay agenda cannot silence. It never has and never will. YOU can stomp your feet and rage against The Church, but truth is truth no matter how political correctness demands that it be labled hate.

Same ol' same ol'

And please note, the "you" in the quote below is a collective "you" meaning The Church. Not juts about me here at this website or the eleven Apostles.

Context, context, context.

Quote:
“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you."

- Jesus the Christ

Matthew 15


Quote:
* The only country that registered a steeper decline in religiosity was Vietnam, which saw a 23-point drop from 53 percent to 30 percent.
However, Ireland and Vietnam were not unique in this dip in faith, Reuters notes.
According to the global index, there has been a notable decline in religiosity worldwide.
Current data shows that the number of people worldwide who call themselves religious is now 59 percent, while 13 percent self-identify as atheist.
However, according to trending data, religiosity has fallen by 9 points globally since 2005 and the number of people who identify as atheist rose from 4 percent to 7 percent. Note that only 40 countries were polled in both 2005 and 2012, so there are two different sets of data available.
The U.S., France and Canada joined Ireland on the top-10 list of countries to have experienced a "notable decline in religiosity" since 2005.
The number of people in the U.S. . . .

- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/religiosity-plummets-ireland-declines-w...



Also, please note that Vietnam may be the most visited country in the world for child prostitution. I know many, many, many "Christians" trying to stop it.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 46: Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:07 am
Reply
Re: Missed?

Like this post
[Replying to post 45 by 99percentatheism]

You're right - Christain morality doesn't go because it's not that moral to begin with. Hate and killing for their God and annexing pagan rituals to garner more 'members', priest toching boys with little to no punishment isn't the morality I'd want to be involved with.
Quote:
What IS secularism producing in society?* It sure looks like anything goes.
Sometimes you see only what you want to see. But if you're right, you have no obligation to partake in it if you don't like it. After all, you are in this world and not of it right?
Quote:
Any Christian should fear the promoting of sin.
Why? Aren't you strong enough to avoid sin? Is your faith in God so weak that you can't avoid sin simply because you see it?
Quote:
And both bear the consequences of that free will choice.
What right does any Christian have to interfere with this free will choice? What makes you the keeper of our free will?
Quote:
The opposition to the gay agdenda is about a billion or so Christians.
Is that a fact you can provide data for?
Quote:
The WBC is a dozen or so people.
And they are part of the fringe
Quote:
Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons tried the same thing as these gay theologians.
Yeah so what? You're not either one of these right? Why do you care?
Quote:
And The Church is standing as it always has.
That's a lie. The 'church' has changed over time. It's not as it 'always has been'. THinking so shows a lack of reading simple history Laughing
Quote:
If anything is relegated to the fringe sir, it is gay theology.
That makes no sense to the topic but OK thanks for that.... icon_confused2
Quote:
I don't like it.
Obviously
Quote:
I am a Christian.
I doubt that
Quote:
And without doubt the way it is has never changed and never will.
It is changing. Not accepting it won't change that fact.
Quote:
Also, please note that Vietnam may be the most visited country in the world for child prostitution. I know many, many, many "Christians" trying to stop it.
Good for them. So what?
icon_confused2
I guess everyone can complain about anything if they look hard enough

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 47: Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:15 am
Reply
Re: Missed?

Like this post
Wordleymaster1
[Replying to post 43 by 99percentatheism]

Quote:
Jesus never condemned Sharia Law. He never condemned pornography. He never condemned heroin usage. He never condemned Nuclear weapons. He never condemned wife swapping.


Quote:
You're right. There was no need for him to because it's obvious it's the individuals decision to decids if it's right or wrong. Since he didn't condemn it, why do YOU condemn it?


I don't. I just agree that there are things that are already condemned.
But you can't see the folly and danger of claiming rights for engaging in behaviors JUST because Jesus never said a word about them?

Quote:
It's not YOUR place, or any Christian's place, to dictate what Jesus SHOULD have said, or what he MEANT on a certain topic.


That makes no sense. And it contradicts the New Testament.

Quote:
It's not YOUR place, or any Christian's place, to 'fill in' what Jesus SHOULD have said or MEANT on a topic he didn't discuss.


WHOA-WHOA-WHOA !!!! So it's OK if non and anti Christians "fill in" what Jesus didn't say?

C'mon now man.

Quote:
Why not, if he didn't mention it, you let the individual decide on it? Where do you get the authority to decide anything personal like this for anyone else because you CLAIM to be a Christian?


Why such a personal attack on me?

I am subjected to this so often it looks like a rule to be followed at this website.

"I" am NOT the person altering Christian truth for any non or anti Christian agenda to be approved for The Church because Jesus didn't mention it.

For Darwin's sake your logic and your demands are not solid.

Quote:
You have ZERO authority to speak for God in these matters. And it's not just you but NO ONE on the planet has the authority to speak on behalf of God (or any god) on personal matters such as these.


I don't know know about you but it sure looks like you just demanded that ANYTHING GOES. That sounds like ANYTHING GOES to me?

Then HOW can anyone (a Christian that is) contend for the faith if it is whatever an individual says it is?

Quote:
The only gatekeeper for these personal things of God is GOD.
We all have our opinions. Great!


And once those "personal opinions" are put into the public square they are no longer JUST personal things of God.

Quote:
But claiming "I'm right and you're wrong and I know this to be true because I'm a Christian" borders on a narcissistic personality disorder to me.


OK, so YOU get to play theologian AND psychologist and I have to shut up? You do not have the right to address me in this manner. But watch, not one pro gay proponent here will report your violations.

Now how does a Christian "contend for the faith" without you demanding they not speak at all?

Isn't that YOU speaking for God?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 48: Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:42 am
Reply
Re: Missed?

Like this post
Wordleymaster1
[Replying to post 45 by 99percentatheism]

Quote:
You're right - Christain morality doesn't go because it's not that moral to begin with. Hate and killing for their God and annexing pagan rituals to garner more 'members', priest toching boys with little to no punishment isn't the morality I'd want to be involved with.


Agreed. And that is why so many of us are not Catholics. And Jesus never said a word about Christmas trees and adopting (annexing) pagan ways. But you seem to be implying that this was WRONG for Christians to do. And theologically too.

You know, promoting things Jesus never said a word about.

Uh-oh.

Quote:
What IS secularism producing in society?* It sure looks like anything goes.


Quote:
Sometimes you see only what you want to see. But if you're right, you have no obligation to partake in it if you don't like it. After all, you are in this world and not of it right?


Obvioulsy my attitude on this forum shows I still have a ways to go. But since I do not justify my own sins, I cannot justify others. Even if they demand civil rights to do so.

Quote:
Any Christian should fear the promoting of sin.


Quote:
Why? Aren't you strong enough to avoid sin? Is your faith in God so weak that you can't avoid sin simply because you see it?


How strong was Peter? He was the first to proclaim Jesus as Messiah.

Quote:
And both bear the consequences of that free will choice.


Quote:
What right does any Christian have to interfere with this free will choice? What makes you the keeper of our free will?


Why do secularists put up S T O P signs? Or, force us to "obey" any of their laws? I don't run S T O P signs because i need a car that is not totaled.

Quote:
The opposition to the gay agdenda is about a billion or so Christians.


Quote:
Is that a fact you can provide data for?


How many "pro gay Christians" are there? Most of the great Denoms where gay activists have plied their trade have been shattered by schism.

OK, I'll retract the absolutism and "guess at" at a billion or so. I'll bet I'm way closer to reality than gay activists.

Quote:
The WBC is a dozen or so people.


Quote:
And they are part of the fringe


Your opinion is duly noted.

Quote:
Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons tried the same thing as these gay theologians.


Quote:
Yeah so what? You're not either one of these right? Why do you care?


It places gay theology in its proper place. As Jude points out.

Quote:
And The Church is standing as it always has.


Quote:
That's a lie. The 'church' has changed over time. It's not as it 'always has been'. THinking so shows a lack of reading simple history


That would be YOU claiming Jesus is a liar. I'm not sorry that I won't do that.

If hell will prevail against the Church, neither will a 20th century pop culture, secular movement in Europe or the USA.

Quote:
If anything is relegated to the fringe sir, it is gay theology.


Quote:
That makes no sense to the topic but OK thanks for that....


It is not my problem if you don't understand that.

Quote:
I don't like it.
Obviously
Quote:
I am a Christian.


Quote:
I doubt that


I don't care.

Quote:
And without doubt the way it is has never changed and never will.


Quote:
It is changing. Not accepting it won't change that fact.


Cell phones, overhead projectors, social media, and sexual proclivities doesn't change Christian truth.

"Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever." As the Christian truth goes.

Quote:
Also, please note that Vietnam may be the most visited country in the world for child prostitution. I know many, many, many "Christians" trying to stop it.


Quote:
Good for them. So what?


Religiosity of its people? You didn't read the referenced article? And now in California there is a "law" to try to curb rapes in their colleges and universities. "Yes means Yes." I guess secularism needs a bit of structure and, dare i say, moral absolutes? Why does there need to be a "NEW BILL" about rape?

Quote:
California adopts 'yes means yes' law - USA Today
www.usatoday.com/.../california...yes-means-yes.../1476566...
USA Today
Sep 29, 2014 - California's legislature wants to define in law just when.
SB-967 Student safety - California Legislative Information
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/.../billNavCli...
California State Legislature
Bill Information; California Law; My Subscriptions; My Favorites ... Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YES ... “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in ...
California SB 967 makes 'affirmative consent' law - CNN.com
www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/living/affirmative-consent-school-policy/CNN
Sep 29, 2014 - California SB 967 requires students to seek "affirmative consent" from partners at each stage of sexual activity. How does "yes means yes" ...
In the news

California's Sexual Consent Law Will Ruin Good Sex for Women
Reason.com‎ - 2 days ago
... FoterFeminists are super excited about California's newly minted "yes means yes" law that ...
Most Americans Support 'Yes Means Yes' Sexual Consent Rule
Huffington Post‎ - 3 days ago
Column: "Yes means yes" law misguided
The Gamecock‎ - 7 hours ago
More news for yes means yes california law
California Approves 'Yes Means Yes' Law For College ...
www.businessinsider.com/california-approves-yes-means...
Business Insider
Sep 29, 2014 - SB 967 has been signed into law by California governor Jerry Brown. ... California Approves Controversial 'Yes Means Yes' Consent Law For ...
Campus Rape: The Problem With 'Yes Means Yes' | TIME
time.com/3222176/campus-rape-the-problem-with-yes-means-yes/
Time
Aug 29, 2014 - The campus crusade against rape has achieved a major victory in California with the passage of a so-called “Yes means yes” law.
California Enacts 'Yes Means Yes' Law, Defining Sexual ...
www.npr.org/.../california-enacts-yes-means-yes-law-defining-sexual-c...NPR
Sep 29, 2014 - Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill into law that makes California the first in the nation to have a clear definition of when people agree to sex.
The Problem With California's 'Yes Means Yes' Campus ...
www.usnews.com/.../the-problem-with-califo...
U.S. News & World Report
Aug 29, 2014 - Now, California's legislature has passed a “yes means yes” law for universities, requiring schools of higher learning to adopt standards of ...
California 'Yes Means Yes' Law Worries Skeptics - US News
www.usnews.com/.../california-yes-means-ye...
U.S. News & World Report
Sep 29, 2014 - California's new “Yes Means Yes” law, designed to address sexual assault on college campuses, will produce unintended consequences that ...
"Yes means yes" law aims to reduce sexual assaults when ...
www.cbsnews.com/.../yes-means-yes-law-hopes-to-reduce-sex...
CBS News
Aug 29, 2014 - California legislature sent the governor the first law of its kind ... Ultimately, whether it's "yes means yes" or "no means no," it's still going to be a
...

Quote:
I guess everyone can complain about anything if they look hard enough


Wait a minute? I thought you asserted otherwise with your narcissist charge?

Talk about icon_confused2

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 49: Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:37 am
Reply
Re: Missed?

Like this post
99percentatheism wrote:

Danmark
Divine Insight wrote:


Condemning people in the name of Jesus is about as anti-Christian as a person can be.

And that's basically what you are doing here. You are proclaiming that if gay people can't find pro-gay scriptures in the Bible then you are vindicated in condemning them in the name of Jesus Christ.

That's not biblical either.

How about YOU producing scriptures that give you the authority to condemn people in Jesus' name?


How about Luke 18?
Quote:
9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed[a] thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”


Humbleness? "GAY PRIDE?" The movement that demands that they were born with the right to sin and to promote it? DEMAND IT?

Whereas the Christians that preach repentance are doing exactly as the humble man in the parable. They examine themselves first and foremost and then keep to the truth about sin and sinning. It is the gay position that is proud and justified before the Lord not only as they walk into the Temple but leave it as well. In fact, we have a thread here about the justification of homosexuality because people are "born that way." Precisely as the Pharisee is demanding his stature before the Lord in the scriptures YOU reference.

How many times does one need to repent of their sin to be forgiven of it?

Quote:
Nope, that's not it.


How prophetic. You are absolutely right. "Gay Pride Movement?" Says it all.

Quote:
Maybe Romans 14:1-23


How about Romans 1?

But let's see what you offer and if it can justify Gay Pride?

Quote:
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.


Hmm, Peter had a dream about foods that were unclean being OK moving forward. But not one word about sexual behavior. Paul talks about it too.

I think you are missing the point, and missing the point of various passages of scripture. When Paul is talking about not bothering about various differences Christians have with each other about whot foods to eat, or what days to observe, he is in effect saying, "don't sweat the small stuff." Jesus echoed this thought when warned against straining gnats while swallowing camels. He was complaining about the Pharisees condemning the Disciples for 'threshing' grain on the Sabbath so they could eat it as they walked along. Whereas the Pharisees were using a loophole in the law to avoid caring for their parents.

When Jesus talked about divorcing wives, he was not talking about gender roles in marriage, but answering the practice of men divorcing their wives so they did not have to financially support them any longer, or because they were no longer attractive, or for other trivial reasons. He was not making a case about same gender marriage.

The central problem with your doctrine on same sex marriage is that it fails to recognize how culture and temporally bound that thinking is. Paul recognizes this when he is no longer concerned about circumcision, or the right foods, or days. Tho' he did not mention it, other 'laws' such as not wearing mixed fabrics, or letting different grains be sowed in the same fields make no sense today. It is the essence of the law that must be followed:

To love God and to love others as you would be loved; to be sensitive to them and their inate differences. In Paul's day they likely did not know that 5% of the population is virtually born with a different gender appreciation than the majority. Today, most of us know better. I recognize you disagree with this, but the majority of academics who have studied the matter objectively conclude it is so.

Even Paul understood the principle when he wrote that it is better not to marry, but if the temptation was too great, marriage was better than 'burning.' Would God really want someone to marry someone he or she is not attracted to just so they can live the lie that would be their conventional marriage?

When you misunderstand 'gay pride' as a lack of humility, you misunderstand the history you claim to know. Something like 42% of gay men were bullied as 'sissies' in their youth. The violent police raid on the Stonewall Tavern finally crystalized decades of resentment for ridicule and bullying into these people standing up for themselves in a society that despised them and drove them to go underground, to hide themselves.

The central point of Christianity should be to help those who are wrongfully persecuted and hated, not shun them and speak out against them, while claiming to be "persecuted" when people disagree with this condemnation of a minority.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 50: Thu Oct 09, 2014 11:54 am
Reply
Re: Missed?

Like this post
Danmark wrote:

99percentatheism wrote:

Danmark
Divine Insight wrote:


Condemning people in the name of Jesus is about as anti-Christian as a person can be.

And that's basically what you are doing here. You are proclaiming that if gay people can't find pro-gay scriptures in the Bible then you are vindicated in condemning them in the name of Jesus Christ.

That's not biblical either.

How about YOU producing scriptures that give you the authority to condemn people in Jesus' name?


How about Luke 18?
Quote:
9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed[a] thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”


Humbleness? "GAY PRIDE?" The movement that demands that they were born with the right to sin and to promote it? DEMAND IT?

Whereas the Christians that preach repentance are doing exactly as the humble man in the parable. They examine themselves first and foremost and then keep to the truth about sin and sinning. It is the gay position that is proud and justified before the Lord not only as they walk into the Temple but leave it as well. In fact, we have a thread here about the justification of homosexuality because people are "born that way." Precisely as the Pharisee is demanding his stature before the Lord in the scriptures YOU reference.

How many times does one need to repent of their sin to be forgiven of it?

Quote:
Nope, that's not it.


How prophetic. You are absolutely right. "Gay Pride Movement?" Says it all.

Quote:
Maybe Romans 14:1-23


How about Romans 1?

But let's see what you offer and if it can justify Gay Pride?

Quote:
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.


Hmm, Peter had a dream about foods that were unclean being OK moving forward. But not one word about sexual behavior. Paul talks about it too.

I think you are missing the point, and missing the point of various passages of scripture. When Paul is talking about not bothering about various differences Christians have with each other about whot foods to eat, or what days to observe, he is in effect saying, "don't sweat the small stuff." Jesus echoed this thought when warned against straining gnats while swallowing camels. He was complaining about the Pharisees condemning the Disciples for 'threshing' grain on the Sabbath so they could eat it as they walked along. Whereas the Pharisees were using a loophole in the law to avoid caring for their parents.

When Jesus talked about divorcing wives, he was not talking about gender roles in marriage, but answering the practice of men divorcing their wives so they did not have to financially support them any longer, or because they were no longer attractive, or for other trivial reasons. He was not making a case about same gender marriage.

The central problem with your doctrine on same sex marriage is that it fails to recognize how culture and temporally bound that thinking is. Paul recognizes this when he is no longer concerned about circumcision, or the right foods, or days. Tho' he did not mention it, other 'laws' such as not wearing mixed fabrics, or letting different grains be sowed in the same fields make no sense today. It is the essence of the law that must be followed:

To love God and to love others as you would be loved; to be sensitive to them and their inate differences. In Paul's day they likely did not know that 5% of the population is virtually born with a different gender appreciation than the majority. Today, most of us know better. I recognize you disagree with this, but the majority of academics who have studied the matter objectively conclude it is so.

Even Paul understood the principle when he wrote that it is better not to marry, but if the temptation was too great, marriage was better than 'burning.' Would God really want someone to marry someone he or she is not attracted to just so they can live the lie that would be their conventional marriage?

When you misunderstand 'gay pride' as a lack of humility, you misunderstand the history you claim to know. Something like 42% of gay men were bullied as 'sissies' in their youth. The violent police raid on the Stonewall Tavern finally crystalized decades of resentment for ridicule and bullying into these people standing up for themselves in a society that despised them and drove them to go underground, to hide themselves.

The central point of Christianity should be to help those who are wrongfully persecuted and hated, not shun them and speak out against them, while claiming to be "persecuted" when people disagree with this condemnation of a minority.


OK yours is simply the finest opinion piece I have ever read on this subject. And while I am tapping away on an IPad, I simply don't have the time to answer in the manner in which this deserves. But, the matter of LGBT demands on The Church come from an outsider and foreign body of culturally unified folk that seems not to be looking to "accept Christ as Lord and Savior," but to find victory over others. Now, this just an observation, but, the Gay Pride flag represents many, many cultural beliefs and behaviors that are as incompatible with Christian life as is voodoo culture.

Take for example the husband and wife reality of marriage.

Another example: joining your "members" to a prostitute.

There are machinations of LGBT culture that cannot be fit into Christian life unless a total reinvention of Christan truth is employed. And that is not a loved based action, it is simply an attack and genocide.

But, I will endeavor to see things in some of the characterization that you have expressed and I will give you a respectful rebuttal.

99

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version