Christian "Love" for "Homosexuals"

[Haven]

Christian fundamentalists often claim to "love" lesbians, gays, and bisexuals (who they invariably label "homosexuals"), while at the same time actively opposing gay rights, including marriage equality, hate crimes laws, and even decriminalization of same-sex relationships. This seems ridiculous to me, as love implies support, but these individuals certainly don't support LGB people.

Debate question: Is it possible to love gay, lesbian, and bisexual people while opposing gay rights?[/i

[99percentatheism]

KCKID

KCKID

This thread is titled: Christian "Love" for "Homosexuals."

It should be: Christian "love" for the "sinner" shouldn't it?

Is it "Christian love" to pretend sin isn't sinning?

Is there "love" in false teachings? Is there "love" in a False Teacher?

99percent, here is an item from Wikipedia with references should you wish to follow them up: Along with bisexuality and heterosexuality, homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation within the heterosexual–homosexual continuum.[1] There is no consensus among scientists about why a person develops a particular sexual orientation;[1] however, biologically-based theories for the cause of sexual orientation are favored by experts,[3] which point to genetic factors, the early uterine environment, or both in combination.[4] There is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role when it comes to sexual orientation;[4] when it comes to same-sex sexual behavior, shared or familial environment plays no role for men and minor role for women.[5] While some hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural,[6][7] research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects.[1][8] Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.[1] There is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation.[9]

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

Wikipedia? Why mot reference the Human Rights Campaign? You cannot be serious to be trying to rebut Christian truth by pop culture of anything goes. Christians are not to yoke themselves with unbelievers or those that imbibe the world and its ways.

Please note that NOWHERE in the above documentation is homosexuality called 'a sin' or in any way referenced as 'deviant behavior'. When the word 'homosexual' first appeared in the New Revised Standard Bible in 1946 it inaccurately and dishonestly equated the term with 'sinful behavior'. Since you, 99percent, appear to be the main player on the board with regard to the Bible’s apparent aversion to homosexuality, would you (please) present the specific words that the later Bible authors sought fit to replace with the word ‘homosexual’ or ‘homosexuality’ ...?

Of course its not sin. It is a re-writing of the text to fit the gay paradigm of this age. And again, and again, YOU can believe whatever makes your sexual desires feel justified. But Christian truth doesn't change because of gay pride political power. I notice with utter fascination that even so-called gay Christian movement, must identify with gay pride movement. Again, yoking oneself to the world and its ways is not bearing good Christian fruit.

I'm aware that, besides the active participants in this thread, there are also many more people that view this and other threads but don't actively participate.

Could it possibly because they are terrified to be labeled and charged with a hate crime and be reported for a warning for being a Christian like the ones in the Bible?

Yeah, 99percent, that must be the reason . . .

Any opposition to gay power and you are thrashed. You do it to me quite often. I, on the other hand, have always held that you can live as you so please, in whatever sexual world you want to invent. But, there is no support for "gay pride" or same gender sexual behavior anywhere in the Bible. Why The Church has to endure this movement is very telling to the age in which we live. I notice that gay Christian positions are one and the same with non and anti Christian gay positions.Where there is unity there is unity there is identity. That gay pride activists have now turned their efforts to flying their flag over The Church is to be expected. Certainly to be opposed no differently than any other worldly influence trying to get at Christians, but this time around, the odds facing Christians in the western world are quite daunting. LGBT efforts are supported and empowered by massive numbers of non and anti Christians. "By their fruit you will know them."

Thus, we always need to be mindful of these viewers when we post our comments and thoughts. Some of these people may well be gay themselves and might be curious as to how Christians and others regard them on forums such as this one.

Only if they care about history and Biblical truth.

Bible truth? The exegetical truth behind the texts under discussion? History? Factual or fictional?

20th and 21st century "powers and principalities" can reach incredible numbers of people now in the internet age. But the same old message of corruption is still the message. Watching the gay pride movement setting its sights on The Church, and the prophecies, warnings and teachings in the New Testament jump impressively into life on the front pages (and back pages) of media with utter validation.

They would, undoubtedly, already know that Christianity, generally speaking, disapproves of them or their alleged 'behavior' or their alleged 'agenda' or their alleged 'abominations' or their alleged ...whatever.

You seem to have forgotten that even you have pointed out that ALL Christians also follow the teachings that "all have sinned . . .:

You seem to have forgotten that 'homosexuality', by definition, is not 'a sin'.

Speak for yourself. I haven't redefined sin. The LGBT pride movement coming full speed at the Church has.

What they may NOT know, however, is that there are an increasing number of Christians and their particular denominations that are 'gay affirming' and that not ALL of Christianity should be painted with the same broad brush.

They should be aware of the "preaching of a different Gospel" is a place to be wary of. Marriage in New Testament scripture is man and woman/husband and wife. No matter what Gay Agenda demands of it to change to the will of political correctness.

"They" should be aware that there are many Christian denominations throughout the world and probably just as many different interpretations of the same scriptures. No ONE Church has all 'the truth' and no ONE Church should claim to have all 'the truth'.

Also, this thread has nothing to do with gay marriage. It's about Christian "Love" for "Homosexuals".

Propaganda always has a motive. Interesting that this one isn't so ulterior. It is the height of Christian love to preach repentance from sins. Only ow, that has been defined as mean and hateful by certain sexuality movements.

I would highly recommend the following video presenting Bishop John Shelby Spong featuring content that is well in keeping with this particular thread title.

Is it "Christian love" to preach a Gospel different from that of Jesus and the Apostles and Disciples?

On the contrary, I believe that John Shelby Spong is pretty well 'spot on' with his preaching of the Gospel message. It's about love and being nonjudgmental.

Though his positions are not spot on with scripture. But once again, you and he can invent any kind of new religion you so desire. I and my house, we will serve the Lord. The One the Apostles did.

Yes, it is rather lengthy (1:23:19) but very 'watcher-user-friendly'. Also yes, the mere mention of John Shelby Spong may cause 'eye-rolling' from some but, from my perspective, what this man preaches IS 'Christianity'.

It is radical Christianity not preached by anyone IN The New Testament, nor any Gospel affirming person in history. Nor does his teachings find support FROM scripture. John Shelby Spong is a "radical progressive" whose teachings align more with "the world and its ways" than with the faith delivered only once to the saints." Now, Spong and his group have the right to invent a new religion, but they do not have the right to claim Gospel or Apostolic support for their new inventions and new politics.

That his particular interpretation of the Gospel message (specifically the teachings of Jesus) might differ from yours does not make JSS wrong.

Not in his mind. Interesting that his theology does not align with the testimony and the witness of scripture, but does align with the world and its ways. Fruit bearing shows the roots.

His message has renewed my faith in 'Christianity' as it was meant to be!

What kind of religion does Spong represent if it is no different than the secular world and its ways? If we are to "test all things and hold firmly onto the truth" doesn't that include Spong?

Caveat emptor

I haven't yet heard Bishop Spong preach a message that Christians should do whatever they please ...morally speaking. He does believe, however, in one being free to be fully human whether one be gay or straight. That's not such a bad message, is it? Don't you, on the other hand, support an opposite message?

You need to learn a bit more about Spong. I support a message that agrees with the Gospel and the rest of the testimony of New Testament scripture. Spong, on the other hand, does not. I can't embrace, encourage and support lies and a liar and consider that Christian "love." If I cannot even justify my own sins, why would I support Spong and the gay pride movement demanding to have authority in The Church?

Psalm 51 please.

[99percentatheism]

KCKID

So arguing that "arsenokoitai does not refer to sexual behavior (coitus even a new on-line magazine makes that connection) but instead just some kind of bedroom discussion . . . is a highly dubious stand. Even in the 21st century "going to bed" with someone, does not carry the meaning of two people catching up on some sleep.

I'm not arguing. I'm merely giving the official definition of the Greek term "arsenokoitai". Once again (is this the 5th time?) ... arseno=male/koitai=bed/s. You can fill in the blanks with whatever floats your boat ...and many have, much to the detriment of gay people!

"Gay people?" Why can't you say homosexuals?

It seems to be a compound of the roots arsen, meaning "man," or "male" and koitai meaning beds, usually the marriage beds, from which the English word "coitus" is derived.

Irreconcilable Differences?: Intellectual Stalemate in the Gay Rights Debate
By Thomas C. Caramagno -

http://books.google.com/books?id=IIHQH0 ... ai&f=false

By the way, has it ever occurred to anyone that many, if not all, of these texts were never intended for we of today?

Yes. Only if Jesus is NOT the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Only if you have a Jesus like Spong's that can be forced to fit any new pop fad.

Surely, if the original authors HAD considered that people in the year 2014 would be taking an interest in their work and preaching it to the world, then would not these authors have been more precise with their message/s and wording? Why is so much of it couched in ambiguities and riddles and even made-up words that have no clear interpretation?

"Men in bed together?" How much more precise do you want Paul to be? Do we really need the Johnson and Johnson products and visuals added? C'mon now, the children?

There is something clearly amiss when we need to spend so much time trying to decipher 'this scripture' from 'that scripture' just to determine who are the 'bad guys' we should be pointing the finger at.

You are your side are the only ones wasting time trying to gay pride the scriptures. The rest of us hundreds of millions just want to be allowed to preach the Gospel without being labled as some kind of gay pride violators. But then again, it was Nero - man that married men - that instituted the first "secular" persecutions.

Let's face it ...neither God nor Paul nor any other biblical 'whoever' had "we" in mind when these scriptures were written. Plain old logic tells me this.

Really? Can you point out where any of the voices in the New Testament ever taught that?

Here's a glimpse that your opinion may be something only you must live with:

"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.�

- Peter acts 4

I don't see an expiration date on that do you?

[99percentatheism]

The Rt. Rev. Peter Jensen, Australia’s Archbishop of Sydney, is making headlines for denying a heretic access to the pulpits of the churches under his care. The heretic is the retired bishop of Newark, New Jersey, The Rt. Rev. John Shelby Spong — a man who has denied virtually every major Christian doctrine. -

John Shelby Spong has written a series of books attacking the central doctrines of the Christian faith. As a matter of fact, he has basically run out of doctrines to deny. He has repudiated the Christian faith as treasured by the faithful Church for two thousand years — the faith of biblical Christianity. This faith is the faith for which the martyrs died.

Here are a few quotes about martyrdom:

“They say martyrdom is the highest rank a believer can achieve! Do not believe in this! The highest rank is the life itself, it is the existence itself! There is no rank in death, but only nothingness! Rank exists only in life! Stick to the life, stay away from death! Neither kill nor die!�
― Mehmet Murat ildan

“Those who endlessly praise the rank of martyrdom must first attain that rank! No invented rank is superior to the life! You stick to the life and let the fools stick to the death.�
― Mehmet Murat ildan

“Beyond all the other reasons not to do it, free speech assaults always backfire: they transform bigots into martyrs.�
― Glenn Greenwald

“The myth of Christian martyrdom and persecution needs to be corrected, because it has left us with a dangerous legacy that poisons the well of public discourse. This affects not just Christians, but everyone. We cannot use the mere fact that we feel persecuted as evidence that our cause is just or as the grounds for rhetorical or actual war. We cannot use the supposed moral superiority of our ancient martyrs to demonstrate the intrinsic superiority of our modern religious beliefs or ideological positions. Once we recognize that feeling persecuted is not proof of anything, then we have to engage in serious intellectual and moral debate about the actual issues at hand.�
― Candida Moss, The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom

Mark Thompson, responding to Bishop Spong in the newspaper of the Sydney archdiocese, noted correctly that “one cannot imagine anyone willing to be martyred for Spong’s Jesus.�

Meaningless rhetoric! How many Christians could step forward and state with all honesty that they are willing to sacrifice themselves as martyrs for Jesus because of Christian persecution?!

Even the secular press understands the depths of Bishop Spong’s denial of Christian truth. The Sydney Morning Herald noted that Spong

- (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/an- ... 96819.html)

{Spong} - has denied that Jesus was born of a virgin, that Joseph ever existed, that Jesus performed miracles, that He died for our sins, and that He was raised from the dead. He also denies the deity of Christ and the nature of God as a personal being, much less the only true God. In other books Spong has suggested that the Apostle Paul was a repressed homosexual. More recently, he has joined the chorus of those suggesting that the death of Christ was necessary for the salvation of sinners amounts to “divine child abuse.� -

People should be making their own decisions as to what they believe and what they don't. For too long "The Church" has been making that decision for them. It's "Wake Up!" time for Christianity and if Christianity can't 'hold it's own' against "old scriptures/new ideas" then it will crumble as it probably deserves to do. If a new and improved "Christianity" emerges then all the better! I don't know that anyone is out to destroy Christianity but rather to reintroduce Christianity as it was meant to be!

Arguing 'beliefs' is futile, 99percentatheism, and only results in disaccord. A 'belief' is, according to Wikipedia:- a pneumatological activity, maintaining a psychological state in which an individual holds a conjecture or premise to be true. [1] Dispositional and occurrent belief concerns the contextual activation of the belief into thoughts (reactive of propositions) or ideas (based on the belief's premise).

So, there you go. Spong's beliefs differ to your beliefs and it matters not if 'your' particular belief is shared by the majority of Christians. So what? People's beliefs are regularly formed by what the majority believes. The brain is a sponge and, more often than is probably beneficial, it absorbs many things merely based on repetition, i.e. no actual 'thinking' required. Spong teaches that people should be encouraged to be fully human and that one's 'Christianity' is more about 'being' a Christian rather than in telling others "I am a Christian and I can quote the Bible (often incorrectly!) to prove it!"

So let me get this straight. You are positing that one can be a Christian if they simply can pronounce the word Christian and can attach to it ANYTHING they personally feel it to mean?

(I went back and bolded that question.)

And I repeat:

So let me get this straight. You are positing that one can be a Christian if they simply can pronounce the word Christian and can attach to it ANYTHING they personally feel it to mean?

[dianaiad]

Even in the 21st century "going to bed" with someone, does not carry the meaning of two people catching up on some sleep

I go to bed with my 11yr old grandson most weekends and all we do is sleep.
What are you implying?
Are you a sicko?
Perhaps what goes on in your bedroom needs to to be examined?
Do you think?

Moderator Warning


Do not make personal comments or conjectures about the poster. If you can't make your point by writing about the content, perhaps you should wait to write until you can.

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.

[bluethread]

Do you think this is not a serious matter we are discussing? If so, then I will not worry if I should happen to say something that might be considered disrespectful.

Is this real or am I in the middle of a strange dream . . .??

I'll use this last exchange as shorthand, since most of the post was you being confused about me asking about the principle of societies not regulating what two consenting adults do. I asked if that include sadism, erotic strangulation and/or a suicide pact. You said we are not talking about those things. However, those are things that consenting adults do. So, if it is indeed a principle that societies should not regulate things done by consenting adults, that would include those things. If societies can regulate those activities, the principle falls. So, if you believe that societies can regulate these thing, you can not use it as a justification for limiting societal regulation of other things without at least fine tuning the principle.

Therefore, do you wish to defend sadism, erotic strangulation and/or a suicide pact, or do you wish to fine tone the principle that you are using to limit societal regulation?

[KCKID]

So let me get this straight. You are positing that one can be a Christian if they simply can pronounce the word Christian and can attach to it ANYTHING they personally feel it to mean?

(I went back and bolded that question.)

And I repeat:

So let me get this straight. You are positing that one can be a Christian if they simply can pronounce the word Christian and can attach to it ANYTHING they personally feel it to mean?

Of course anyone can call themselves a Christian without the need to offer proof. You may well use this remark as a comeback against Spong or me or whoever but that's okay. The same thing applies for everyone. When one professes to be a Christian a halo doesn't suddenly appear above their heads thereby making their "Christianity" recognizable to everyone. As Billy Sunday allegedly said: “Going to church doesn't make one a Christian any more than going to a garage makes one an automobile."

That said, it's not for any of us to judge the truth or the purity of a person's convictions.

[KCKID]

Do you think this is not a serious matter we are discussing? If so, then I will not worry if I should happen to say something that might be considered disrespectful.

Is this real or am I in the middle of a strange dream . . .??

I'll use this last exchange as shorthand, since most of the post was you being confused about me asking about the principle of societies not regulating what two consenting adults do. I asked if that include sadism, erotic strangulation and/or a suicide pact. You said we are not talking about those things. However, those are things that consenting adults do. So, if it is indeed a principle that societies should not regulate things done by consenting adults, that would include those things. If societies can regulate those activities, the principle falls. So, if you believe that societies can regulate these thing, you can not use it as a justification for limiting societal regulation of other things without at least fine tuning the principle.

Therefore, do you wish to defend sadism, erotic strangulation and/or a suicide pact, or do you wish to fine tone the principle that you are using to limit societal regulation?

<sigh>

Yes, I defend sadism, erotic strangulation and/or a suicide pact based on the principle that what one does in private is one's own business.

Okay?

[bluethread]

Therefore, do you wish to defend sadism, erotic strangulation and/or a suicide pact, or do you wish to fine tone the principle that you are using to limit societal regulation?

<sigh>

Yes, I defend sadism, erotic strangulation and/or a suicide pact based on the principle that what one does in private is one's own business.

Okay?

It may be ok with you, but it is not OK with me. I believe that societies have every right to regulate behaviors that have a likelihood of resulting in injury, disease and death. However, let me ask you, is this simply because these things are combined with sexual activity, or are you a hard core libertarian?

[Danmark]

"Gay people?" Why can't you say homosexuals?
....

Yes. Only if Jesus is NOT the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Only if you have a Jesus like Spong's that can be forced to fit any new pop fad.
....

"Men in bed together?" How much more precise do you want Paul to be? Do we really need the Johnson and Johnson products and visuals added? C'mon now, the children?
....
You are your side are the only ones wasting time trying to gay pride the scriptures. The rest of us hundreds of millions just want to be allowed to preach the Gospel without being labled as some kind of gay pride violators. But then again, it was Nero - man that married men - that instituted the first "secular" persecutions.
....

You have been advised that the term 'homosexual' is a term of derision against gays, yet you continue to use it. To many in that community your insensitivity and in particular the WAY you use the word, not to mention calling them 'sinners,' is, to many fair minded people similar to racial epithets. Insisting on using that word, especially the way you use it is like saying 'fag' or 'queer.' I do not in my wildest imagination expect you to agree. I'm sure you will continue to insist on using 'homosexual' because you really don't care if you are hurtful or insensitive.

What you have made clear over and over and over, is that the ONLY correct interpretation of scripture is your own. You ridicule Spong and any other Christian or non Christian who has the sophistication, background and intelligence to at least be open to a non literal interpretation that takes into consideration the cultural milieu of the time in which a passage was written.

There are plenty of good Christians on this forum who agree that being gay is a violation of 'God's Word' as they understand it, but they do not present their views in such a strident, angry, bombastic, and intolerant manner as you do.

The difficulty in your usage of a literal interpretation, that makes no allowance for ANY cultural change, and to personally sit in judgement of others, calling them "sinners" is that it projects an angry, evil, vindictive form of Christianity that in the past was used to promote slavery, racism, and prejudice against the poor. Your attitude reminds me of the old Scofield Reference Bible that used verses in Genesis to excuse the racism of those 'Christians,' claiming those verses referred to Africans. There was some logical basis for that evil misinterpretation, but that did not make it right.

The fact that you harp on constantly on only one issue in virtually all your posts here, convinces me you use the Bible as an excuse for your personal issues.

My personal opinion of your views and the way you express them make it impossible for me to fairly act as a moderator on your posts that are reported.

[KCKID]

Therefore, do you wish to defend sadism, erotic strangulation and/or a suicide pact, or do you wish to fine tone the principle that you are using to limit societal regulation?

<sigh>

Yes, I defend sadism, erotic strangulation and/or a suicide pact based on the principle that what one does in private is one's own business.

Okay?

It may be ok with you, but it is not OK with me.

That's okay. It's your right to have an opinion.

I believe that societies have every right to regulate behaviors that have a likelihood of resulting in injury, disease and death.

So what do you propose ...video monitoring the bedrooms, i.e. 'bedrooms' being an idiom for 'privacy', of everyone on the off-chance they might be participating in sadism, erotic strangulation and suicide pacts?

However, let me ask you, is this simply because these things are combined with sexual activity, or are you a hard core libertarian?

Oh yeah ...I'm really into depraved acts of sexual sadism, erotic strangulation and suicide pacts ...NOT! In a way I hope that you are toying with me ...otherwise I might start to feeling a little creeped out by this line of questioning.

The truth is ...I'm really not that interested in one's sexual proclivities ...they can strangle each other or be as sadistic as they like since it's none of my business. Nor am I a hard core libertarian. So, no, I'm neither of those. I'm just an average Joe that tries to get along with everyone even though I am sometimes frustratingly (to some) very opinionated ...especially nowadays.

Actually, if not for the fact that I'm a fair musician (:dance2:) and feature this in public at times I might even be considered a tad boring most of the time ...!