That particular comment was about Pagans, since you apologized for not capitalizing it. Your hatred towards your fellow man, who happens to be gay or non-Christian, leaks out here once again.
GLBT's only appreciate people that submit to their authority over morality. I do not and never will.
False, you are confusing them with yourself. You are the one attempting to force people to submit to your morality, gays merely want a chance to live their lives equally under the law.
You seem to be applying Fundamentalist Debate Tactic (FDT) #2, claiming that people you disagree with are attempting to force you to approve of them, when if fact they are just wanting equal rights under the law. It is only #2 because FDT #1 is to use false claims, often surveys using unsound methodologies and claim that correlation equal causation, to make false claims against gays (or liberal Christians or whoever you are debating) -- then constantly repeat them like a mantra hoping that people will believe them.
But, not to join them in their sins and not to support them either.
Straw man. Again, this is something I never claimed. Perhaps I should label this FDT #3, make false claims about what those you are debating actually said. Though you also throw in FDT #2 in an attempt to get extra points.
Without doubt. Now how about Jesus and what a marriage consists of? Keep going . . ., I'm impressed that you are trying the apologia.
Actually, Jesus never made a claim about what marriage consists of. The sole example, which I believe you are alluding to, is when Christ was being baited on a question about a man divorcing his wife -- in response he quotes from Genesis that a man and a woman become one flesh. Nowhere does he say this is the only combination -- rather it fit the question about a man divorcing his wife. Trying to claim it says more is the logical fallacy known as an
argument from silence.
That was about rude people. You are on the right track.
False, Christ command that if a person compels you to go a mile you should go twain, Matthew 5:41, was specifically about a Roman law called
lex angeria. Under this law, Roman soldiers and administrators had the right to compel ordinary people to carry their burdens for 1,520 steps, known as a Roman mile. After 1,520 paces, the Roman had no authority to force the person further. And don't forget, the Roman's were all Pagan at this time; so Christ was basically telling them that if they were compelled to carry this burden for a mile, that they should willingly help the Pagans more than was required.
Christians live out this fundamental Gospel truth every day. We are still not supposed to approve of sin.
Some do, some don't. Yet you seem to deny and reject part of Christ's message here, being a believer doesn't make you any better than the most lowly of sinners. It is the way you show your love for others, how you treat your neighbor regardless of their sins that makes you better. As Christ says later in Matthew (25:31-45)
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
I pointed out that he was repentant tax collector.
Except this isn't literally correct. Being a tax collector did not make a person a sinner, just as being a homosexual (having same-sex attraction) does not make one a sinner. It is actions that make a person a sinner. A man could be an honest tax collector, though he is likely to have been poor. Instead, the idea was that "power corrupts" -- and tax collectors had a lot of power and, by abuse of their position, could become quite rich.
I'm sure that Matthew repented of whatever sins he committed, but simply being a tax collector did not make a man a sinner. Just as homosexual Christians also repent of their sins -- even if you disagree with them about what their sins are.
Big difference than a sinner that takes pride in their sins and encourages others to do likewise. BIG difference. Read up on what Jesus said about that. Encouraging and leading people into sin is a greater sin than just sinning.
I've not seen any gays here honestly encourage others "to do likewise". Admitting who you are is not a sin, regardless of how much you want to deny them the ability to live their lives by their own beliefs.
I'll get back to you if I can. The "yeast of the pharisees" coupled with several parables may come as a surpise to you on that point.
Actually, I think you would be the one surprised -- just as I'm guessing you are surprised about my knowledge of the Bible. Sure, Christ condemned the Pharisees. The difference is that the "publicans and sinners" Jesus dined with were not trying to claim they were speaking for God, that only they knew the truth. In fact, in Matthew 5:46 Christ points out, "If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?" Christ condemned the Pharisees not for their sins but for their treatment of their fellow man (not loving their neighbor) and that those they converted became as bad, or worse.
I don't try to hide that I am a sinner. That only seems to be liberal and gay Christians that go to great lengths to do that. I stick with the "fundamentals" of the faith. Jesus referred to that as building a house on rock.
You seem to be going back to FDT #3 here, lying about others. I've not seen any liberal Christian ever claim they were sinless. If you aren't lying, perhaps you could show me where liberal Christians claim to be perfect? Nor have I ever heard of gays, in particular gay Christians, to be perfect. Simply because they may disagree with what is a sin does not make them perfect. Though your comment here, in regard to your wanting to point out the sins of others while you yourself admit to be a sinner, would appear to fit what Christ said in
Matthew 7:3-5.
Jesus and His Apostles claimed that they had the truth and those that opposed them and their truth did not.
With your belief Christ was God, then he would know the truth -- as well as the apostles that he taught.
No, you agree with the predetermined beliefs that you claim that Christ believed. Your claims here are no greater than those of other Christians, including the liberal ones.
It is plain to see that liberals and GLBT's do not agree with them.
No, that is your assertion based on your predetermined beliefs. You've shown in this thread you have no interest in even considering alternate thoughts.
You support gay rights."If" you are a Christian, that is not a wise decision to make.
Again, according to your belief. Other Christians disagree.
According to Jesus and the Apostles and their opinions.
No. You have no clue what Christ's actual opinion about homosexuality was, nor of his apostles. The only person that actually speaks of homosexuality, in any form, in the Bible is Paul -- who never knew Christ on Earth. From the Bible, the closest record of Christ and homosexuality we appear to have is in the story of the centurion and his servant.
I agree with them. Not the APA and San Francisco and Boston based lawyers.
No one is asking you to believe in lawyers or science, just like there are those that still believe that the Earth is flat. OTOH, nothing gives you the right to use the law to discriminate against your fellow citizens, regardless of how big of sinners you believe they may be. You appear to be making a straw man to appeal to FDT #2.
I am not pretending. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck and craps like a duck, it's a duck.
That's a silly analogy. We have Genesis and Adam and Eve and the Ten Commandments . . . et al, and fast forwarding through to the Gospels and the letters in the New Testament, to see that doing as pagans do is doing as pagans do. There is no such thing as Christian same-gender sexual union. Nor any "other than pagan" in the Israelite records.
We don't have any record of airplanes in Genesis, the Ten Commandments, the Gospels, or in the letters of the New Testament. I guess they must obviously be Pagan, too? Again, Pagan relates to a form of worship of Gods; sex that is part of that type of worship, regardless of whether homosexual or heterosexual, is Pagan in nature. All other sex is not Pagan. That you refuse to understand this simple concept again appears to refer back to FDT #1.
There is no such thing as same-gender sexual unions of any kind approved of anywhere for any reason in the Bible. In fact it is not even mentioned.
Well, there is the likely relationship with the Centurion and his servant. Again, however, claiming that same-gender sexual unions are not mentioned and so not approved is, again, an argument from silence.
But, many places where it is disapproved of.
There are maybe eight places in the Bible that refer to some type of same-sex acts. OTOH, there are hundreds of passages that condemn heterosexual sex acts. Yet, we don't claim that all heterosexuality is forbidden because of those hundreds of passages (though Paul makes a case for all sex being forbidden in 1 Corinthians). Which only reinforces the fallacy for claiming that all homosexuality is forbidden based on a handful of scriptures.
Many sin celebrating Christians are comparable to the Pharisees.
True but most who act like Pharisees do not celebrate their sins. Rather, like the Pharisees, they honestly justify trying to force others by their beliefs thinking they are leading them to God.
GLBT's are just people that literally celebrate their sins.
No, they just disagree with you about what sin is. However, they don't try to force people to sin with them like the Pharisees did.
Please "oddly" explain how you honor your father and mother when you have two same-gender "parents?"
The same way children of single-parent households or adopted children do.
The concept is absurd to the entire Biblical witness. Not just a few books of it. And remember, the Biblical witness disapproves of cross dressing as well.
Again, according to your belief system.
