Produce "Pro gay (or LGBT)" scripture

[99percentatheism]

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.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 20 by Wordleymaster1]

The printing press wasn't invented when the Apostles were slaughtered by the Romans. FYI.

Is this not a bait thread then, or did I miss the justification for this thread?

Stonewall was not a Church. It was a bar that catered to gay prostitution. The "gay liberation" movement is decidedly not of Christian origin and has no justification for trying to take authority there.

The "justification" for this thread is to always keep first and foremost to the truth that Christians that oppose the homosexualization of The Church are the good guys. Even if they are pushed out of their historic denominations by the pro gay crowd. Schism, is not exactly what you would call good fruit. Like the LBT pride "movement" of Matthew Vines and Soulforce, there is no justification for promoting gay, or rather "LGBT" pride and its promotion of homosexuality to rule over all in The Church. Actually, there's seem quite enough denominations (there's only need for one) and other pro homosexuality orgs for this attack on Christians that will not support gay pride to finally be put to rest. Even though the pro gay theology has no scriptural support. That hasn't stopped many a spin off religion and shouldn't stop the LGBT religion from finding their own private organizations to ply the gay pride desires.

This thread isn't a bait, it is an honest question that has only one honest answer.

Which of course is: You can't because there aren't any.

Truth shouldn't elicit such animosity. It should just be honored.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 21 by 99percentatheism]

Romans 15:7

Therfore accept one another just as Christ accepted us.

Romans 14:3 is in a similar vein.

The NT message is to accept all. For your argument to be true you would have to find a contradiction in scripture.

[Divine Insight]

I don't condemn anyone. I am not The Judge of all the universe. Jesus is. I just react to false teachings and false teachers and wolves in sheep's clothing.

I don't see anyone preaching false teachings.

You are objecting to gays being accepted in to Christian Churches. But they aren't threatening to teach anything. On the contrary they are simply "Believer" in Christ just like you. They just happen to believe that Jesus does not condemn their choice of a partner. They aren't teaching that you choose the same as they do.

All they want to do is openly express their love for Jesus and for one another. And they want to consummate their love before God, taking vows before God in the eyes of witnesses.

For you to partake in one of their marriage ceremonies does not mean that you condone their behavior. All it means is that you are willing to witness these vows before God. It's not up to you to decide for God whether God should respect these vows etc.

These gay couples have come to Jesus openly and honestly confessing to Jesus precisely who they are as they are. They are willing to openly take vows of Holy Matrimony before the eyes of God and before witnesses. The witness only need to witness these events. It's not even their place to judge them.

If these gay couples feel confident that they have been accepted by Jesus and God and they have no feelings of guilt and feel at peace with God, then who are you to demand that this can't be true?

~~~~~

Finally, let's assume just for the sake of argument that you are right and that both Jesus and God do indeed view homosexuality as a "sin". What then?

Well, when Jesus was crucified he was mocked, beaten, and nailed to a pole by unbelievers. What did Jesus do? Jesus requested of the Father, "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do".

So even if homosexuality is a sin, if these gay couples don't know that it's a sin then Jesus will no doubt forgive them on the same grounds that they know not what they do.

No skin off your nose.

If you truly trust in Jesus and God, you should welcome anyone into your church who is willing confess who they are before Jesus and God, and then leave any judgements up to Jesus and God.

What you appear to be doing is standing in front of Jesus and God passing judgement on people refusing to even allow Jesus or God to have any say in the matter.

[Danmark]

"Homosexualize' is not even a word. It is an attempted neologism. In fact, so is the word 'homosexual' which was coined by a German psychologist in the 19th Century.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

The word does not appear in an English language translation until the RSV in 1946.
The word Paul used in Corinthians, ἀ�σενοκοῖται, was likely his own neologism and the word has been used to convey different meanings than Paul's by other ancient writers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_ ... osexuality

This anti homosexual interpretation is as bogus as the Dake Bible's efforts to interpret the Bible as condemning the African 'race.' The term 'heterosexual' is also a very recent word. This is explained in a very recent article.
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/22/the_inv ... erosexual/

What I find more interesting is what Jesus had to say on the subject. He used a word translated as "eunuch" that is more rightfully translated as 'homosexual' than Paul's neologism.

This verse that is virtually ignored by Christians who wish to condemn 'homosexuality.' It simply states the reality of homosexuality. It goes against the prevailing belief of many Christians that homosexuality is a sin because it does not condemn; it recognizes that this 'condition' is not one of choice.

“For there are eunuchs who are born thus from their mothers womb, and there are eunuchs who are made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who are eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens sake. Let those who can accept it, accept it.�
Matthew 19:12.

Then we have a famous example involving God's 'beloved,' David:

“When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.� (1 Samuel 18:1-4)

In the first chapter of 2 Samuel, the author tells us that after Saul and Jonathan were killed in battle, David tore his clothes and fasted, a sign of deep mourning. He wept and wrote a song, which he ordered all the people of Judah to sing. In that song, he included these words, which are Exhibit D:

“Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!
In life and in death they were not divided;
they were swifter than eagles,
they were stronger than lions.
How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle!
Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
I am distressed for you my brother Jonathan;
Greatly beloved were you to me;
your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.�
(2 Samuel 1:23, 26-27, emphasis added)

An additional text provides a foundation for an argument well made at:
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/b ... athan.html

One night, at the royal table, the subject of David came up, and Jonathan spoke on his behalf. Saul’s reaction is Exhibit B. Saul said to Jonathan:

“You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen [David] the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established.� (1 Samuel 20:30)

Many gay men have experienced dinner conversations that sounded very similar to this one. They made the mistake of talking about their lover at the table, and their father became furious. More often than not, the blame goes first to the mother, who was “too soft,� or “too harsh,� or who “perverted� her son somehow. Then the father turns his anger toward the son: “Can’t you see how you’re shaming the whole family? Do you even care what this will do to your career? You’ll never amount to anything until you give up this foolishness!�

The story of Jonathan and God's beloved David is a clear demonstration that when two soul mates meet and are also sexually attracted to each other, God does not condemn their love and intimacy. Promiscuity and 'debauchery' and 'licentiousness' are completely separate issues.

[cool_name123]

I just wanted to re-iterate my point from earlier as I feel both that it kind of got overlooked with all the bickering, and that it is actually quite relevant to this question/issue (even if not one that is immediately recognized or often quoted in support of). Perhaps not in regards to the condoning part of the question (and there's already been some decent points made for that already)... but certainly in regards to the supporting part of the question.

Alright, let me paint you a picture. Timothy has been given the task of fixing the church in Ephesus but there's a problem... it’s full of people concerned so much with bickering about religious dogma that they have forgotten about what it truly means to follow Christ. A congregation desperately trying to figure out through careful analysis how one is a Christian. What they are doing is squabbling over meaningless dogmatic principles that has nothing to do with the message of Christ. They are a church obsessed with religion but want nothing to do with God, or as T.H. white put it when describing a character named Guinevere “She became a wonderful theologian, but cared nothing about God.�

So Timothy is sent to clean up this mess of a religion emerging in Ephesus and as we witness in 1 Timothy people are not using sound words and as we see through careful reading of Paul's writing, the sound words being chosen are based on wisdom or in latin sapientia. This is a kind of wisdom that can only come from the heart and be lived out personally in relationships. Not through the godless chatter of scientia or information used impersonally and stored within our minds.

And what does Timothy do, enter into a big lecture about how stupid all this ‘godless-chatter’ is... pointing out specific religious practices, eventually making a point that sounds eerily similar to this debate exclaiming

1 Timothy 4:1-5 [NRSV]
“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will renounce the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared with a hot iron. They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, provided it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer�

He’s essentially saying “What are you guys doing with-holding this magnificent gift of God, that is marriage, from people? That’s not how you build the relational community of Christ... Stop it! Let those peeps over there get married!�

Whether or not it is sanctified anywhere else in the bible... I think Timothy makes it pretty clear that all this arguing instead of fostering loving communities that everyone can be a part of ain’t the way to go.

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to post 21 by 99percentatheism]

This thread isn't a bait, it is an honest question that has only one honest answer.

Which of course is: You can't because there aren't any.

Which is exactly the reason why this is a BAIT THREAD. Your clarification is appreciated.

[99percentatheism]

Danmark

"Homosexualize' is not even a word. It is an attempted neologism. In fact, so is the word 'homosexual' which was coined by a German psychologist in the 19th Century.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

Obviously I know that. My knowledge of this subject can't be ignored. As you prove. Homosexualize is a perfectly accurate description. As is homosexual. As you obviously are aware of.

The word does not appear in an English language translation until the RSV in 1946.
The word Paul used in Corinthians, ἀ�σενοκοῖται, was likely his own neologism and the word has been used to convey different meanings than Paul's by other ancient writers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_ ... osexuality

It is a word meaning men having sex together. And it is a condemnation with no historical doubt. Stonewall isn't going to change that.

This anti homosexual interpretation is as bogus as the Dake Bible's efforts to interpret the Bible as condemning the African 'race.' The term 'heterosexual' is also a very recent word. This is explained in a very recent article.
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/22/the_inv ... erosexual/

Well, not so fast Mr. theologian. Africans are a people group. Homosexuality is a physical act. No matter how hard the propagandists want to say otherwise. And we have condemnation of homosexuals in the Old and New Testament. And of course not one word celebrating gay sex. Even your Jonathan and David tactic is so weak as to be wondered at as to why it is still used. If it were not so mangled by the inappropriateness of propaganda it would be done away with totally. To even imply that David and Jonathan had anal and oral sex with each other is simply beyond decency.

Just one visit to a War Veterans event and you see what the love of a man for another man actually entails. Some can barely let go of each other as they relive their time together as young men. Watching the "love" that men have for one another as they relive their time together on a Championship team or some other interactions with each make the homosexualization of David and Jonathan nothing more than a very inappropriate propaganda tactic.

David and Jonathan both had wives. Female wives. I guess the gay activists don't want to see reality? What are facts but pesky sound bites huh? The propagandist just simply ignores it moves on to their intended target.

What I find more interesting is what Jesus had to say on the subject. He used a word translated as "eunuch" that is more rightfully translated as 'homosexual' than Paul's neologism.

Jesus said He came not to change "the Law." Um, you aren't going to find gay marriage in "The Law." Like in Christian truth, there is no such thing as same gender marriage. It is simply something that exists outside of the Biblical life. No matter how hard you try to homosexualize the Bible, it is an impossible task.

This verse that is virtually ignored by Christians who wish to condemn 'homosexuality.' It simply states the reality of homosexuality. It goes against the prevailing belief of many Christians that homosexuality is a sin because it does not condemn; it recognizes that this 'condition' is not one of choice.

Virtually ignored? It is well known by Christians and it actually shatters the gay agenda's drive to take authority in The Church. What is absolutely ignored is by the gay activists. There is no such thing as support for gay sex or gay marriage in or from the Bible.

“For there are eunuchs who are born thus from their mothers womb, and there are eunuchs who are made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who are eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens sake. Let those who can accept it, accept it.�
Matthew 19:12.

Then we have a famous example involving God's 'beloved,' David:

Well as is seen, to homosexualize David and Jonathan is a desperate attempt by gay activists to justify their own behavior when it is clear their is no justification for it from the Bible. David and Jonathan married women and had children as God intended. You forgot "in context" Danmark.

Even the eunuch texts you reference shatter your goal here. Let's see the context of Matthew 19:

When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?�

“Haven’t you read,� he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.�

“Why then,� they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?�

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.�

The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.�

Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.�

No such thing as same gender marriage. Marriage is man and woman/husband and wife. All your gay theology is left with is that it exists in the "not everyone can accept this word," category. And proper sexuality is placed within the appropriate boundaries of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

And the condition "eunuch" NO sexual behavior. That's why they are "made that way" by men.

“When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.� (1 Samuel 18:1-4)

And then they had anal and oral sex?

Serioulsy utterly inappropriate interpretation of the kind of love being described here. Many men have given their lives for their friends and comrades. OBVIOUSLY surpassing the "love" they have for a woman. How many "women" are dumped and or abandoned by men that "love" them? It is such a common occurence that it is a culture plague on our society. To demand that "love" between men must entail anal and oral sex is to be be depraved.

In the first chapter of 2 Samuel, the author tells us that after Saul and Jonathan were killed in battle, David tore his clothes and fasted, a sign of deep mourning. He wept and wrote a song, which he ordered all the people of Judah to sing. In that song, he included these words, which are Exhibit D:

“Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!
In life and in death they were not divided;
they were swifter than eagles,
they were stronger than lions.
How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle!
Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
I am distressed for you my brother Jonathan;
Greatly beloved were you to me;
your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.�
(2 Samuel 1:23, 26-27, emphasis added)

An additional text provides a foundation for an argument well made at:
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/b ... athan.html

One night, at the royal table, the subject of David came up, and Jonathan spoke on his behalf. Saul’s reaction is Exhibit B. Saul said to Jonathan:

“You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen [David] the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established.� (1 Samuel 20:30)

It is clear from context that Saul's son Jonathan recognized "the anointing" was on David and not his father the king. Saul's is well documented as being obsessed with power to be King. The scriptures just do not bear out sex acts as Jonathans and David's motivation. This gay theology you are attempting here is well known to Christians. It has been weighed and found wanting. Actually found disturbing.

Many gay men have experienced dinner conversations that sounded very similar to this one. They made the mistake of talking about their lover at the table, and their father became furious. More often than not, the blame goes first to the mother, who was “too soft,� or “too harsh,� or who “perverted� her son somehow. Then the father turns his anger toward the son: “Can’t you see how you’re shaming the whole family? Do you even care what this will do to your career? You’ll never amount to anything until you give up this foolishness!�

This propaganda just doesn't hold weight. It's the same thing when a child says that he or she is choosing another belief system or worldview from that of their parents. It is well known that Jewish parents will sit shiva when their child becomes a Christian or other rejection of Judaism. One just needs to rent Fiddler On The Roof for such validation.

The story of Jonathan and God's beloved David is a clear demonstration that when two soul mates meet and are also sexually attracted to each other, God does not condemn their love and intimacy. Promiscuity and 'debauchery' and 'licentiousness' are completely separate issues.

So then you are clearly and unambiguously stating that David and Jonathan committed gay sex with each other? That this is the only way men can "love" each other intensely? Where is the scriptures supporting your homosexualization of it? Where is the story of homosexuals being blessed by God?

Your theology here is impossible to support as both David and Jonathan were blessed through their children. The beauty of David's love for Jonathan being expressed by his not killing off Jonathan's Children Mephibosheth and therefor "blessings") do not come through gay sex acts.

2 Samuel 9 New International Version (NIV)

David and Mephibosheth

David asked, “Is there anyone still left of the house of Saul to whom I can show kindness for Jonathan’s sake?�

Now there was a servant of Saul’s household named Ziba. They summoned him to appear before David, and the king said to him, “Are you Ziba?�

“At your service,� he replied.

The king asked, “Is there no one still alive from the house of Saul to whom I can show God’s kindness?�

Ziba answered the king, “There is still a son of Jonathan; he is lame in both feet.�

“Where is he?� the king asked.

Ziba answered, “He is at the house of Makir son of Ammiel in Lo Debar.�

So King David had him brought from Lo Debar, from the house of Makir son of Ammiel.

6 When Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, came to David, he bowed down to pay him honor.

David said, “Mephibosheth!�

“At your service,� he replied.

“Don’t be afraid,� David said to him, “for I will surely show you kindness for the sake of your father Jonathan. I will restore to you all the land that belonged to your grandfather Saul, and you will always eat at my table.�

Mephibosheth bowed down and said, “What is your servant, that you should notice a dead dog like me?�

Then the king summoned Ziba, Saul’s steward, and said to him, “I have given your master’s grandson everything that belonged to Saul and his family. You and your sons and your servants are to farm the land for him and bring in the crops, so that your master’s grandson may be provided for. And Mephibosheth, grandson of your master, will always eat at my table.� (Now Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants.)

Then Ziba said to the king, “Your servant will do whatever my lord the king commands his servant to do.� So Mephibosheth ate at David’s table like one of the king’s sons.

Mephibosheth had a young son named Mika, and all the members of Ziba’s household were servants of Mephibosheth. And Mephibosheth lived in Jerusalem, because he always ate at the king’s table; he was lame in both feet.

Your theology does not hold up under the testing of it.

To demand that the intense love men have for one another in the David and Jonathan recounting includes anal and oral sex has no basis in reality.

When context is observed honestly, gay theology is sent back to the propaganda and "otherness" category solidly.

Now let's move on to Ruth and Naomi shall we? Another fave of the gay propaganda advocates. Two lesbian lovers that got married? Hardly.

Ruth is a great grand mother of King David. There are no grand children produced from lesbian sex acts. No "blessings" of children. Now, is that "homophobia" or is it just honesty as described in scripture?

And then we have pederasty as being "blessed" by Jesus as a gay theology position. The Roman commander, and his "pais" being ill, and cured by Jesus at just a word because of the faith of the Roman?

Seriously? Now pederasty is on the table?

Gay theology has been answered:

mene, mene, tekel, parsin

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 21 by 99percentatheism]

This thread isn't a bait, it is an honest question that has only one honest answer.

Which of course is: You can't because there aren't any.

Which is exactly the reason why this is a BAIT THREAD. Your clarification is appreciated.

It is a request for a discussion/debate on the reality that there is no such thing as support for gay pride or anything else pro-homosexuality anywhere in the Bible. So, Christians that are accused of being "anti-gay" and so many other disgusting and hateful labels are nothing of the kind. They are simply honest people believing truth as honest people should. I wrote this OP not for any other reason but to support my brothers and sisters in Christ that are being falsely charged with negative labels. Although I perfectly realize that Jesus said we would endure this kind of charge against us, it is still important to "contend for the faith . . .."

What should be the response from those that interact here is recognizing the appropriateness of the Christian opposition to the homosexualization of The Church. Danmark made an attempt and as ineffective as it was, it is proof that this thread is not baiting but has a far more honorable intention.

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to post 28 by 99percentatheism]

It is a request for a discussion/debate on the reality that there is no such thing as support for gay pride or anything else pro-homosexuality anywhere in the Bible.

Nope, it's a bait thread for YOU to spout your own POV. You know full well, as do most people here if not all, that there is no specific pro-gay scriptures verbatim that can be cited. There little to no opinion as to rather or not there is pro-gay scripture. You know this so there needs no 'discussion'.
I could have started a thread of "Produce Pro Chevrolet (or Chevy) sctipture" and it would get the same result - THERE ARE NONE.
It's quite transparent really.

What should be the response from those that interact here is recognizing the appropriateness of the Christian opposition to the homosexualization of The Church.

I don't think there are many that don't recognize the church's stance here. Why the need to keep bringing it up if for no other reason than to spout Christian dogma and propaganda?

Danmark made an attempt and as ineffective as it was, it is proof that this thread is not baiting but has a far more honorable intention.

Replying to a bait thread does not a honorable thread make

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to Wordleymaster1]

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. It's effective, don't get me wrong, I've been silenced other threads time and time again, but usually because the desperation to silence the Christian truth about the inappropriateness of plying gay activism in The Church.

There are multi threads and posts here that ridicule and accuse Christians of not only being wrong, but accuse them of all sorts of hateful things. There is no justification for those charges. The Biblical reality about homosexuality perfectly defends those in the opposition of it.

Your point (and charge) is refuted by people like Danmark, who at least make an attempt at supplying scripture to show support for homosexuality. And reminiscent of Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon movements, there is a kind of "gay Christian" position based on those reinterpretations of scripture. And although the gay theology he supplies does not make the case for homosexualizing The Church, it does at least put your charge against me to rest.

Or at least should.

I respectfully ask you to not employ the tactic here.