Gay theology (i.e. Mel White, Soulforce) why even try?

[David Brider]

Why does anyone need to identify as "gay" or "lesbian" or the king of them all "bi-sexual?"

I wouldn't say that anyone needs to identify as gay, or lesbian, or bisexual, or straight for that matter - but if someone is gay, or lesbian, or bisexual, or straight, than identifying as such makes sense.

If people that enjoy homosexuality...

People either are homosexual or they're not. Enjoying it isn't really the issue. Although I'd hope that homosexuals would be able to feel comfortable with who they are.

David.

 

[David Brider]

Other than asking gays to be decent about forcing their lifestyle choices onto Christians...

What "lifestyle choices" does being gay entail? And how are those "lifestyle choices" being forced onto Christians?

Gay is a sex act. Why should sexual behavior be allowed to qualify as a minority?

No, gay is a sexual orientation - a way of describing who a person is likely to be attracted to based on gender. And it should be allowed to qualify as a minority because a.) numerically it is a minority, and b.) being attracted to people of the same gender as themselves isn't something that people choose. (Indeed, nobody chooses who to be attracted to. So why the need to single out LGBT folks?)

David.

 

[cantata]

I never say "Christians do x" or "That's just typical of a Christian." I know better than to think all Christians are the same.

Unfortunately, many people here don't seem to afford non-heterosexual people the same courtesy.

 

[WhatThe]

It's called INTERPRETATION, Polycarp.

Different people interpret the bible in different ways. People who have studied the languages the bible was originally written in and read these original documents find things that have been incorrectly interpreted. Some examine the texts in comparison to the time they were written in, and find reasons why certain things were considered to be 'sinful' in that time are not considered to be sinful now (such as eating shellfish). Others (priests, reverends, etc) dedicate their lives to trying to fully understand the scriptures, and read them differently then those of us with less knowledge would.

Who is to say that one interpretation is any less valid then the others?

 

[TheManeki]

I think this thread proves that there is definately a Gays versus the straights and Christians.

You're new here, so you don't have the benefit of knowing too many people in this forum. But there are plenty of straight Christians (for example, BigBadWlf, RDNS, and lil' ol' me) advocating for equal rights for our gay brothers and sisters. If you wish to continue nourishing your persecution complex, you should at least be more accurate and say "Gays, straights, Christians, and non-Christians versus Christian fundamentalists."

("Christian fundamentalists" reminds me of an old strip by Christian cartoonist Rob Suggs:
Pastor 1: Who took the "fun" out of "fundamentalism?"
Pastor 2: I think they took the "mental" out first.)

Basically the Christians. That is why I posted what gays teach about the scriptures I listed. They are an afront to decency and truth. But, that doesn't seem to ever stop the gay agenda from forcing its way into the Chruch and public life. Soulfoece for example, literally intimidates Christians and charges them with a sickening accusation of "spiritual violence," (another neologism) and goes from Christian Churches, Colleges and Organizations demanding to show how Christians are in error about gay sex and gay life being incompatible with Christian truth.

Time for me to post my favorite editorial cartoon again. Maybe it'll make an impression on PF this time.

 

[TheManeki]

It's called INTERPRETATION, Polycarp.

Different people interpret the bible in different ways. People who have studied the languages the bible was originally written in and read these original documents find things that have been incorrectly interpreted. Some examine the texts in comparison to the time they were written in, and find reasons why certain things were considered to be 'sinful' in that time are not considered to be sinful now (such as eating shellfish). Others (priests, reverends, etc) dedicate their lives to trying to fully understand the scriptures, and read them differently then those of us with less knowledge would.

Who is to say that one interpretation is any less valid then the others?

I've asked PF to provide evidence to support his claim that his is the only correct interpretation of the scriptures in question. So far he has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever, which leads me to think he has no such evidence.

At least we can point to real life and show that there is no evidence that a monogamous homosexual relationship is inherently worse than a monogamous heterosexual relationship.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I've asked PF to provide evidence to support his claim that his is the only correct interpretation of the scriptures in question.

Two-thousand years of Christian theology and only now when Humanism has become the dominant influence in society is homosexuality being considered as acceptable. I have shown ample evidence that Christians should reject GLBT culture because I have offered the New Testament unaltered. NO where in the New Testament is there a position to accept homosexuality and there are solid reasons for avoiding the behavior. That shouldn't be seen as anything mean. The cartoons of the Christian hitting the pink triangle T-Shirt guy is a hateful and insulting thing to do. You can show why violence and homosexuality are wrong from an unaltered view of New Testament morality.

[quoteSo far he has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever, which leads me to think he has no such evidence.[/quote]

Sex offenders talk of what they do as not really hurting anyone. This is NAMBLA's position. They believe that sex with children doesn't hurt them at all, because they too were once introduced to this behavior and they are still alive and kicking. Many sex offenders are working members of society. If sex offenders gain more supporters in politics what do you think the future holds. We already see what the age of consent laws do.

At least we can point to real life and show that there is no evidence that a monogamous homosexual relationship is inherently worse than a monogamous heterosexual relationship.

That is an opinion of a liberal or gay mindset. Humanism through and through. And humanism opposes Christianity.

So many people, even in pederasty tolerating Greece and Rome, have oppsed homosexuality since the dawn of mankind, there has to be a solid reason why and not just an "irrational" fear of it and those that engage in it. And of course the biblical record completely rejects it. It seems history shows there are good reasons to do so. Watching our youth culture of 2008 and I see why. The unraveling of society and civilization seems a common occurance throught history and cell phones and computers make us no different than anyone else in history except for speeding up the process of debauchery. As GLBT's rise to political power and social prominence, and their "anything goes" ad campaigns influence young minds and young voters, we will see our society go the way of many, many others that have embraced moral chaos as a civil right. And now we see why, from evolution to atheism to gay marriage is a natural corruption process even in such an age as this. The Bible does indeed tell us so (as well).

 

[Polycarp_fan]

TheManeki,

Why not respond to my position in the thread. Prove the acceptability of GLBT culture and homosexual behavior from scripture.

I have noticd that no GLBT, or any of you supporters of them, have attempted to prove that Christians should engage in homosexuality as being encouraged to do so FROM the Biblical witness. There are fundamental reasons why a person is a Christian and why a person is not. Otherwise there is no way to define anything as anything. "Fundamentalism" is quite in keeping with science and logic and good morality.

I'm thinking I have offered evidence for my claims.

The Sodomites, David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, a Roman sex-slave owner, please offer your exegesis on these "gay supporting" texts. Your Humanist opinion is well known to we Christians. Your Humanist Manifesto is quite well written. All three of them. Let's go champ?

I'll be back later for your fundamentals on Gay christianity.

 

[TheManeki]

PF, all you've managed to do is show srcipture that you believe justifies your beliefs. Other people read the same scripture and reach opposite conclusions. I've read the same passages you have and observed prohibitions against homosexual and heterosexual rape, and homosexual and heterosexual prostitution, but no prohibitions against two people -- heterosexual or homosexual -- who are in a loving, married relationship.

If you are truly interested in convincing people, and not merely being a clanging gong or resounding cymbal, then show us some real-world evidence that correlates with your interpretation.

Sex offenders talk of what they do as not really hurting anyone. This is NAMBLA's position. They believe that sex with children doesn't hurt them at all, because they too were once introduced to this behavior and they are still alive and kicking. Many sex offenders are working members of society. If sex offenders gain more supporters in politics what do you think the future holds. We already see what the age of consent laws do.

The only way I can see you confusing homosexuality and pedophilia is if you believe children can give informed consent for sex. You probably don't want to go down that road; it would be very uncomfortable for you.

So many people, even in pederasty tolerating Greece and Rome, have oppsed homosexuality since the dawn of mankind,

And people throughout history have championed slavery. History is full of people who wish to deny rights to their fellow man.

 

[Corey]

Wasn't there a poster using the Polycarp handle? If so, that would make this person an impersonator/troll.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Wasn't there a poster using the Polycarp handle? If so, that would make this person an impersonator/troll.

Both are referring to Saint Polycarp of Smyrna, I believe.

The poster I know as Polycarp1 seems far more rational, well thought out, and well "spoken" (written?) than this fan, in my opinion.

 

[TheManeki]

I've seen three Polycarps around here -- Polycarp, Polycarp_fan, and Polycarp1. Polycarp1 is pretty progressive, and is a pastor. The other two are quite fundamentalist.

 

[David Brider]

Wasn't there a poster using the Polycarp handle? If so, that would make this person an impersonator/troll.

Nope, this person is Polycarp_fan, whereas the other person (with rather opposite views!) is Polycarp. As far as I know, there is no connection between the two.

David.

 

[WhatThe]

I've asked PF to provide evidence to support his claim that his is the only correct interpretation of the scriptures in question. So far he has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever, which leads me to think he has no such evidence.

At least we can point to real life and show that there is no evidence that a monogamous homosexual relationship is inherently worse than a monogamous heterosexual relationship.

What can i say? The guy is a moron. Not to mention totally obsessed with the so called "gay agenda", anal sex, and didlos.
Which is SO holy and Christian. I'm sure there's a verse somewhere in the scriptures where Jesus validates the mentioning of sex every five minutes...

 

[TheManeki]

What can i say? The guy is a moron. Not to mention totally obsessed with the so called "gay agenda", anal sex, and didlos.
Which is SO holy and Christian. I'm sure there's a verse somewhere in the scriptures where Jesus validates the mentioning of sex every five minutes...

I don't think PF is a moron, but rather someone who is very confused, not to mention ignorant of how gays are in real life. He seems to have trouble seeing through the fundamentalist stereotypes of homosexuality that he has been fed.

As for the obsession with sex, have you read any of Fred Clark's "Gay hatin' gospel" series? It's very good, and the obsession with sex reminds me of the essay about evangelical inner demons. The whole series is worth a read.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Wasn't there a poster using the Polycarp handle? If so, that would make this person an impersonator/troll.

Ah the troll attack. And then of course, I knew some gay supporter would get to the ad hominem attack response. The gay tactics debate book final chapter. What is left of gay theology when it is shown in proper light? It certainly isn't love. Just another heresy plaguing the Church. Like I've written so many times, the Apostles gave us ample warnings about this. They were taught by Jesus.

 

[cantata]

Ah the troll attack. And then of course, I knew some gay supporter would get to the ad hominem attack response. The gay tactics debate book final chapter. What is left of gay theology when it is shown in proper light? It certainly isn't love. Just another heresy plaguing the Church. Like I've written so many times, the Apostles gave us ample warnings about this. They were taught by Jesus.

Overreaction much?!

 

[Polycarp_fan]

PF, all you've managed to do is show srcipture that you believe justifies your beliefs.

Yes, it is called honesty and contending for the faith with the proper tools.

[quoteOther people read the same scripture and reach opposite conclusions.[/quote]

Peter didn't overlook this lesson to future Christians either. Neither did John, James or Jude. And gays know about Paul all too well.

I've read the same passages you have and observed prohibitions against homosexual and heterosexual rape, and homosexual and heterosexual prostitution, but no prohibitions against two people -- heterosexual or homosexual -- who are in a loving, married relationship.

Name one place anywhere :"n scripture" that supports that position?
"You didn't say 'no,' so you obviously meant 'yes." That is absurd logic no matter how you spin it. Now I know why liberals hate Bill O'Reilly so much. And why Jesus and the Apostles so firmly warn about false teachers. You haven't tried your scriptural support? Why not?

[quoteIf you are truly interested in convincing people, and not merely being a clanging gong or resounding cymbal, then show us some real-world evidence that correlates with your interpretation.[/quote]

You will call me a homophobe or bigot if I do. But, I believe the Catholics have had all they can tolerate of gay experience. And how many names are on the AIDS quilt? I knew some of those people personally. The gay community is hardly the group of peaceful monks you pretend it is. I have lived many years in highly gay-populated places. There is no dissent of these people when they obtain power.

The only way I can see you confusing homosexuality and pedophilia is if you believe children can give informed consent for sex. You probably don't want to go down that road; it would be very uncomfortable for you.

Yet, it is very historically accurate to equate the two things. Pederasty is very gay history. IN FACT, gay theologians cling to this very thing as OK, in their Roman Commander and his "pais" apologia. BOOOOO!!!! just doesn't work on me. I'm all grown up now.

And people throughout history have championed slavery. History is full of people who wish to deny rights to their fellow man.

Thank God for Christians fighting injustice and for loving their neighbors (even slaves) as themselves. Otherwise lsave owners would still owning their slaves. Even the boy and girl slaves. I wonder how many pederasts were slave owners? Seems a "natural" fit(?) and according to gay theology quite OK. Study it and see for yourself.

Yet, we see no support or promotion of gay sexual unions anywhere in Christian history recorded by then Apsotles. Even now, all of the support for gays comes from humanists, atheists and other liberal-progressive types. Hardly a sound biblical position for gay theology and social gay-reform. On the secular maybe, but not in the Church. Where is the love towards Christians from GLBT's? And I mean platonic non-physical love. I've already referenced the rejection of the physical in Church apologia.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Overreaction much?!

No. Just responding to what is dealt to me and how and by whom.

 

[cantata]

No. Just responding to what is dealt to me and how and by whom.

Seemed like an innocent question to me.