Should we allow gay marriage.

[EnemyPartyII]

First, all of those things are beside the point.

And second, we don't know how these things effect a child's development.

I'm directly responding to things you said, so how are they "beside the point"?

And what "things" exactly, are you worried about effecting a child's development?

Please be specific.

 

[fated]

I'm directly responding to things you said, so how are they "beside the point"?

And what "things" exactly, are you worried about effecting a child's development?

Please be specific.

You brought up the belief that homosexuality was natural, what effect does that have on traditional marriage? It doesn't have any.

You brought up children in school. I addressed it directly.

We do not know what effect giving children gay role models will have on their sexuality.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You brought up the belief that homosexuality was natural, what effect does that have on traditional marriage? It doesn't have any.

You said that marriage exists because it reflects mankinds nature, right? Well... homosexuality is part of mankind's nature... so... marriage should encompass that as well.

We do not know what effect giving children gay role models will have on their sexuality.

It doesn't seem to have done any harm so far. (You aren't under the strange misconception that children only grow up to be homosexual when exposed to homosexuals, are you? [asked the homosexual with two very heterosexual parents and siblings])

 

[fated]

You said that marriage exists because it reflects mankinds nature, right? Well... homosexuality is part of mankind's nature... so... marriage should encompass that as well.It doesn't seem to have done any harm so far. (You aren't under the strange misconception that children only grow up to be homosexual when exposed to homosexuals, are you? [asked the homosexual with two very heterosexual parents and siblings])

Traditional marriage has always channeled heterosexual energy into responsible use. That would not include homosexual activity, however natural it is.

A child's education to be dictated by the parent unless they are incompetent. If homosexuality is taught in school then one should be able to opt out, without losing access to the school. Further, and really the only important point here, for our purposes, is that we don't know what effect giving children gay role models will have on their view of sexuality and marriage.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Traditional marriage has always channeled heterosexual energy into responsible use. That would not include homosexual activity, however natural it is.

Depends who's traditions you are talking about. There are several cultures around the world with a long history of recognising homosexual marriages.

If homosexuality is taught in school then one should be able to opt out, without losing access to the school.

I don't understand what you mean by "homosexuality being taught in school"... its not a subject. I genuinely don't understand what you think is being taught in schools that shouldn't be taught.

Further, and really the only important point here, for our purposes, is that we don't know what effect giving children gay role models will have on their view of sexuality and marriage.

So?

We should maintain the status quo forever to avoid any risk from new social trends?

(and I assume you simply don't want to hear about the evidence that shows homosexual marriage has no appreciable effect on children's perceptions from countries that have had such recognition for a long time. I can cite articles if you want...)

 

[fated]

Depends who's traditions you are talking about. There are several cultures around the world with a long history of recognising homosexual marriages.I don't understand what you mean by "homosexuality being taught in school"... its not a subject. I genuinely don't understand what you think is being taught in schools that shouldn't be taught.So?

We should maintain the status quo forever to avoid any risk from new social trends?

(and I assume you simply don't want to hear about the evidence that shows homosexual marriage has no appreciable effect on children's perceptions from countries that have had such recognition for a long time. I can cite articles if you want...)

We are not part of those cultures you allude to, and add those in seems to change the nature of marriage. I would further be surprised if they were considered equal (said without qualitative analysis).

So, you're saying that there is a difference that you don't consider appreciable. Besides, we shouldn't give up on marriage as it is, but improve it, by emphasizing the centrality of biological children to the institution, and thus emphasize its natural social value. We should support it and those who participate in it, so that we have less broken homes and children placed for adoption. So that we have more healthy but childless relationships into which we can introduce children who need adopted into the healthiest and most natural environment possible.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So, you're saying that there is a difference that you don't consider appreciable.

I... guess. Although I think it would be more correct to say that homosexual marriage is the same as the heterosexual marriage of an infertile couple.

Besides, we shouldn't give up on marriage as it is, but improve it,

I agree wholeheartedly... until you say...

by emphasizing the centrality of biological children to the institution, and thus emphasize its natural social value.

because a marriage without children is just as valid as a marriage with children. There are millions of heterosexual marriages, who, either by design or misadventure, do not have children. I don't believe for one second you would call into question the validity of these marriages, yet they are essentially no different to any given homosexual marriage.

We should support it and those who participate in it, so that we have less broken homes and children placed for adoption.

Sure... but what does that have to do with homosexual marriage? Are you suggesting that if homosexual marriage were recognised and normalised, there would be an increase in divorces or children up for adoption? If so, please explain the logic underlying that conclusion please?

So that we have more healthy but childless relationships into which we can introduce children who need adopted into the healthiest and most natural environment possible.

Now you've lost me...

I could try to make a sarcastic comment, but I'd rather yopu explain to me how you think restricting homosexual relationships is going to increase the number of childless heterosexual couples in stable marriages?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To RegularGuy,

You see, this is the heart of the issue between us. Scripture is your only authority.

So what is yours then?

Now, I too, accept the authority of Scripture, but not when it contradicts natural observation and plain reason.

Then I would say you don’t accept the authority of scripture because firstly natural observation and plain reason in shows same sex is dysfunctional, and secondly the Bible (as in Romans 1) tells us some abandon God’s truth and think their own is reason.
Nonetheless this is a Christian based forum and we are encouraged to post scripture to support our views; like most of the debate on homosexuality its not homosexuality we end up debating but the nature of what Christians believe and the authority of scripture.
So if you haven’t got any scripture to support your views then its our views against scripture as evidence.

We also know, as the Apostle Paul and the author/s of Leviticus could not have known, that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality.

We see Paul received his revelation from the risen Lord, not man so we see you are either in error or you don’t believe the authority of scripture you have just claimed.

The evidence you offer is your faulty interpretation

How come my interpretation is the same as what the text says then and yours is opposite. No my friend its not interpretation, I believe what the texts says, you don’t.

Let's review: You have said that pro-gay arguments are disbelief. (#296, #316) Disbelief is a loaded term and insulting.

Ok not my problem, if you don’t like what the Bible says you wont like this forum.

Pedophilia is not equivalent to homosexuality. It is false and inflammatory to say that it is.

Sorry but that tough my friend, both pedophilia and same sex unions are outside God’s purposes, so paedophilia is equivalent to homosexuality in that respect. People aren’t just going to agree with your views all the time you know. My view is that placing children with same sex couples is a form of child abuse, God (or even nature if you wish to call God’s creation nature) shows a child is the natural product of a man and woman and is entitled to a man and woman to raise it.
I disagree, belief in the Bible as the reliable testimony of faith is crucial to what makes a Christian, one cant have a relationship with and have faith in someone whose testimony you don’t believe is reliable.

Still, "belief in the Bible" is not the definition of Christian.

Nor did I say that, I said the Bible as the reliable testimony of faith is crucial to what makes a Christian, one cant have a relationship with and have faith in someone whose testimony you don’t believe is reliable.

Yes. That is your interpretation. You know maybe "peanut butter" was a bad example. Maybe I should have said "shoes" or "garden rakes."

Ok garden rakes and shoes can be your interpretation, though it bears no relationship to the text. Can we get back to reality, I repeat, Jesus Christ’s NT teaching describes all food as clean to eat (Mark 7, Romans 14) but declares only man/woman faithful unions or celibacy (Matt 19, 1 Cor 7) and condemns same sex unions (1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1) Does that mean what it says or can one interpret it a meaning the big red bus went up the hill?

All this shows is that Paul, Mark and Matthew agree against Luke.

No they don’t.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

In a day or so you'll come back and that will still be a lie.

Lie? No, Zaac, it is not a lie. It is an honest appraisal by a second party. You may disagree with it if you wish. But it is no lie.

Have you read any of the poetry of Robert Burns?

from, To A Louse:

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An' foolish notion
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us
An' ev'n Devotion.

You're not trading anything with me. I don't receive from those who reject the Bible as God's inspired Word.

And yet, you keep coming back.

My understanding of the inspiration and authority of Scripture is both subtler and more reasonable than the sledgehammer approach you take.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Naah. It's not. You've just had too much schooling.

Where I come from, education is considered a good thing.

If "hermeneutics" was a new word to you, I'm glad to have taught you something.

Since you're not God, how would you know what neither I nor BrightMorningstar are in a position to determine?

I don't have to be God to know that you and BrightMorningStar are not God.

Science means the knowing. God is the All knowing. So like was said, your science just trying to figure out what God has already done.

OK...

So man knows more than the All-Knowing? Sounds like someone has placed science before God. That's called idolatry.

Science is a tool that God has given us to understand the world around us. Refusing to accept the findings of science when they contradict the ancient mythologies of a pre-scientific text makes an idol of the text.

Scripture remains the same as it always has been.

Yes, Scripture remains a collection of ancient writings by people of faith. It's a good source of doctrine, that's for sure. It's not such a great source of history, science, geography...

Don't make me blush.

Go ahead and blush if you feel the need.

He would have to be wrong to change His mind. And He didn't change His mind. He completed what He wanted you to know in the NT about what HE started saying in the OT.

You have a very Greek philosophical view of God. If God doesn't change his mind, then petitionary prayer is pointless, isn't it?

The Bible is the Word of God Regular Guy.Yes God. It is 100% God's Word througgh and through. And just like you, many have tried in the past to disprove it. It continues to stand up against all comers.

I find the doctrine of inerrancy untenable. You make a bold assertion about the nature of the Bible. Care to offer some proof?

So how is it that you know about this Jesus' character absent God's Word?

I've never said that the Bible is unreliable or without merit. My man Martin Luther said that the Bible is like the manger in which we find the Christ child. The Bible does not have to be "100% God's Word througgh [sic] and through" (as you called it) to reveal Jesus' character to me.

Explains why you say so much that is unaligned with God's Word.

I disagree with your interpretation of the Bible, Zaac. Jesus is God's Word, and I think that I am quite well aligned with Jesus.

There are a lot of spirits out there. How you know which one you're dealing with absent God's Word?

Absent Jesus? Oh, you mean absent the Bible. That's different....

Well, happily, I am not absent the Bible. It is the source and norm of doctrine for me. It's handy for testing the spirits. Not so great for understanding homosexuality, though.

Look at that. Starting to make judgments yourself. And you're too late. Your words are already subject to righteous judgment.

So, this is how it works? The first one to judge has the righteous judgment? Sorry, Zaac. I do not submit to your judgment precisely because it is not righteous.

Good thing I referred to how I was judging and not a measure of my character.

If you can give me a reasonable argument that your judgment is separable from your self, I will retract my point.

Ahh. So afterwards, as God Word says, I can see to properly remove the speck from my brothers eye.

Look at that. According to God's Word, I can judge after certain requirements are met.

The unfortunate thing about having a plank in one's eye, is that it blinds one to the fact that they have a plank in their eye. Anyway, when you get that plank out, get back to me.

Personally, I'm still working on my own plank.

Nice try. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. His Word means the same today as it always has.

Homosexual sex was fornication, is fornication, and will be fornication tomorrow because God says so. And until He tosses sin and death into the Lake of Fire, it's gonna be fornication.

Your opinion. Thank you.

Show me a qualitative moral difference between homosexual sex within a covenanted, committed, faithful and exclusive relationship and heterosexual sex under the same restrictions. Hint: "God says it's sin" ain't gonna cut it.

 

[Zaac]

Lie? No, Zaac, it is not a lie. It is an honest appraisal by a second party. You may disagree with it if you wish. But it is no lie.

Place it up next to God's Word. It's a lie.

Have you read any of the poetry of Robert Burns?

Have you read any of the poetry of David?

And yet, you keep coming back.

That's what we call not being phased by lies.

My understanding of the inspiration and authority of Scripture is both subtler and more reasonable than the sledgehammer approach you take.

Your lack of understanding is evidenced by your remaining at odds with God's Word.

 

[Zaac]

Where I come from, education is considered a good thing.

If "hermeneutics" was a new word to you, I'm glad to have taught you something.

Dude, I still don't receive from anyone who does not accept God's Word as His Word. What do I need with a confused understanding?

I don't have to be God to know that you and BrightMorningStar are not God.

I'm pretty sure that neither one of us claimed to be God. And as I KNOW you're not God, you're still not in a position to know what we can determine.

Science is a tool that God has given us to understand the world around us. Refusing to accept the findings of science when they contradict the ancient mythologies of a pre-scientific text makes an idol of the text.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. John 1:1-2

Look at that. The Word of God as captured in print in the inspired Scriptures preceeded your science.

Yes, Scripture remains a collection of ancient writings by people of faith. It's a good source of doctrine, that's for sure. It's not such a great source of history, science, geography...

If you don't trust what it says about history, science and geography, you don't trust what it says about anything else.

You have a very Greek philosophical view of God. If God doesn't change his mind, then petitionary prayer is pointless, isn't it?

You have a very man-centric,man's-time view of God. God ain't confined to your time stream. You petitioning Christ doesn't change what He has already done.

I find the doctrine of inerrancy untenable.

Good for you. Now when you stand before God's throne in judgment and He is judging you in accordance with that which you found untenable, you make sure you let Him know.

You make a bold assertion about the nature of the Bible. Care to offer some proof?

What for? I nor any other Christian is tasked of God to convince anybody that His Word is Truth. That's the work of the Holy Spirit.

I've never said that the Bible is unreliable or without merit. My man Martin Luther said that the Bible is like the manger in which we find the Christ child. The Bible does not have to be "100% God's Word througgh [sic] and through" (as you called it) to reveal Jesus' character to me.

If it's not His Word through and through, you don't know which parts are reliable. As such, it couldn't reveal any such character to you with confidence.

If it's not His Word through and through, what about YOU makes you so knowledgeable that you're able to discern what is and is not His Word?

Sounds like you're just looking to pick and choose what you want so that you can justify sin.

I disagree with your interpretation of the Bible, Zaac. Jesus is God's Word, and I think that I am quite well aligned with Jesus.

Standing up against God's Word says you're not.



Absent Jesus? Oh, you mean absent the Bible. That's different....

Well, happily, I am not absent the Bible. It is the source and norm of doctrine for me. It's handy for testing the spirits. Not so great for understanding homosexuality, though.

Cause you ain't looking to understand it. You're looking to justify it.

So, this is how it works? The first one to judge has the righteous judgment? Sorry, Zaac. I do not submit to your judgment precisely because it is not righteous.

You don't have to. You're righteously judged by the truth that is God's Word. It it has righteously judged you as wrong.

If you can give me a reasonable argument that your judgment is separable from your self, I will retract my point.

I don't argue with folks over God's Word. It says what it says. You can look for folks to try and convince ya if you like. God's Word says what it says. You either accept it or you don't.

The unfortunate thing about having a plank in one's eye, is that it blinds one to the fact that they have a plank in their eye. Anyway, when you get that plank out, get back to me.

Personally, I'm still working on my own plank.

That plank must be pushing up into your skull and accounting for your continued confusion.

 

[littlebird]

We can not allow or disallow Gay Marriage. ONLY God allows a marriage ..a covenant between two people.

There is a difference between a civil marriage and a covenant made by God.

I think civil marriages should be between a man and a woman. I sympathize with homsexuals and if it was up to me to play God ..I might say okay. But I do honestly believe God created marriage to be between a man and a woman so while it goes agianst what I "feel" about homosexuality what I "believe" is no we should not allow it.

As far as forcing our beliefs on others ...butit's okay for others to force their beliefs on me??? That's the whole reason we have goverments ...to see which grup of people gets to force their bliefs on other groups of people ...if we all naturrally agreed .... then we wouldn't have a need for laws would we?

 

[littlebird]

God does not want you to remove your homosexuality ... he gave it to you because it is the best way for you to get to heaven. Unfortunately ( for you) from a Christian perspective we all all called to chasity within our various states of life ...in the homosexual state Chastity means celibacy ...celibacy is not a bad thing ...it is considered by some to be a great gift ...for it allws one to focus their energy elsewhere in service to the Lord.

 

[Jase]

God does not want you to remove your homosexuality ... he gave it to you because it is the best way for you to get to heaven. Unfortunately ( for you) from a Christian perspective we all all called to chasity within our various states of life ...in the homosexual state Chastity means celibacy ...celibacy is not a bad thing ...it is considered by some to be a great gift ...for it allws one to focus their energy elsewhere in service to the Lord.

More often than not, it results in extreme mental illness and an early death. Involuntary celibacy isn't a gift, it's a curse.

 

[Jase]

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. John 1:1-2

Look at that. The Word of God as captured in print in the inspired Scriptures preceeded your science.



If you don't trust what it says about history, science and geography, you don't trust what it says about anything else.

So I take it you believe the Earth is flat, with a solid dome over it, sitting at the center of the universe as the sun and planets revolve around it, and that there was a flood that covered the entire Earth about 4,000 years ago?

 

[littlebird]

There's no such thing a involuntary celibacy ...either you choose it or you do not choose it and that's a bunch of [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] anyway .. what causes mental illness and early deaths are people feeling as if they have no choice.

Big surprise people who feel as if society tells them there is something wrong with them ...committ suicide or stress themselvs to death. I'm saying there is nothing wrong with homosexuals as people ( the homosexual act is a sin ) but they have choices.

There have been several studies that show gay life expcectancy ...for actively gay men is much lower heteromen ... ie in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. (of curse those numbers where influnce by HIV - which would be different now ..but other factors such as serial monogamy ... higher rates of multiple partners, higher alchohol and drug use ( some say ) as well as the stress of being counter society all contribute to those numbers ...some people don't trust those numbers HOGG was vaild they claim Cameron not so valid ...but generally it's agreed "Among all adult men who are behaviorally gay or bisexual, HIV/AIDS reduces life expectancy by 1.2 years. (Among African American men who have sex with men, however, life expectancy drops 7.7 years.)"

On the other hand there have been studies showing that VOLUNTARILY Chaste Celebites live longer lives generally are healthier , more active , report higher rates of job and life satisfaction ( granted this is mostly studying Priest ... but they have extremely stressfull jobs you would think they would not report being happier )

 

[KCKID]

Where are we told unequivocally that homosexuaL acts (per se) are a sin?

 

[littlebird]

Any fornication outside of marriage is a sin. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

The bible has many references to marriage ( the wedding the most often used allegory in thee bible ) - one of most often quoted being - Matthew 19:5 - I'm going to guess you can probably list them as well as I can. The fact is the theme of marriage runs through the old and new test. because the Bible is telling the story of Christ and his bride. In all those references ... everry single one ...it is between man and woman.

Additionally - Christ gave authority to bind and loose to his Church - and church magisterium has unequivocally said marriage is between a man and a woman.

Now we can argue about specific quotes or we could argue about the Authority of the Catholic Church -- or even the authority of the wider christian church - the body of Christ .... but we've both been through these arguments a billion times I'm sure.

I wonder though if someone could show you unequivocally that the homosexual act is a sin ...that Jesus loves the sinner anyway ...and has died for his/her sins ...and is asking the sinner to love him in return and turn aside from that sin .....would you ? ( sorry if I'm pressuming from your statements you are actively choosing this particular sin right now )

Th fact is I do not have to argue and debate this with you ...you have heard the Gospel and are rejecting it because you have knowledge of good and evil ...and no one can tell you what to do ( the 1st sin ) lest you think I am doing what I accuse you of ( thinking I know on my own ...) I don't ...on my own I would say "Gay Marriage ...great. Homosexuality not a sin Great. Promescuity not a sin Great ..." man I'd love to do just whatever I wanted ....but that's making an idol out of self. I do not say these things. I do not say them because I believe there is a higher Truth that is telling us not to say them ...and not to do them..

I do not need to try and convince you ...Jesus will present his view to you in person...and in his infinite love and mercy he will ask you to turn away from sin and love him freely and completely. I pray that you accept his invitation.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Good morning, BrightMorningStar...

To RegularGuy,
So what is yours then?

My authority? That would depend on the subject. I wouldn't use a shop manual for a '64 VW Beetle to repair a 747. I wouldn't study a geometry textbook to prepare for an anatomy exam.

The Bible is the source and norm of doctrine. It contains the knowledge necessary for salvation.

Then I would say you don’t accept the authority of scripture because firstly natural observation and plain reason in shows same sex is dysfunctional, and secondly the Bible (as in Romans 1) tells us some abandon God’s truth and think their own is reason.

Of course I accept the authority of the Bible, in the areas of its authority.

Natural observation shows that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality. Reproduction is not the only purpose of sexuality.

Romans 1 says that homosexual behavior is caused by the worship of idols. That's empirically false. Paul's argument here cannot be used as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality.

Nor should Romans 1 ever be read without going on to the second chapter.

Nonetheless this is a Christian based forum and we are encouraged to post scripture to support our views; like most of the debate on homosexuality its not homosexuality we end up debating but the nature of what Christians believe and the authority of scripture.
So if you haven’t got any scripture to support your views then its our views against scripture as evidence.

I would never discourage anyone from reading and posting Scripture. And (brace yourself) I agree with youthat the debate on homosexuality is often about the authority and interpretation of Scripture. As I've said before, it is at the heart of our disagreement.

Understand that simply posting Scripture does not win a debate. Also, in these debates we should expect to have our understanding of Scripture challenged. Iron sharpens iron and all that.

Also, in debates about homosexuality, the Bible cannot be the only admissible authority, since the Bible was written before the modern concept of sexuality was even conceived.

We see Paul received his revelation from the risen Lord, not man so we see you are either in error or you don’t believe the authority of scripture you have just claimed.

It was important for Paul to emphasize the nature of his revelation as it established his authority as an apostle. But what was the content of his revelation? The Gospel. (Gal 1.11-12) The mystery of Christ by which Gentiles become fellow heirs with Jews (Eph. 3:1-6). It was not that nursemaid the Law that was revealed to him. It was the Gospel of justification by grace through faith.

How come my interpretation is the same as what the text says then and yours is opposite. No my friend its not interpretation, I believe what the texts says, you don’t.

Because you read the text selectively, close your eyes to other evidence, and interpret a few verses without context to make an eternal condemnation of those people whom God created homosexual.

The text is not my God.

Ok not my problem, if you don’t like what the Bible says you wont like this forum.

I love the Bible. I love the forum. And I like a good debate. Ask anyone who knows me.

Sorry but that tough my friend, both pedophilia and same sex unions are outside God’s purposes, so paedophilia is equivalent to homosexuality in that respect. People aren’t just going to agree with your views all the time you know. My view is that placing children with same sex couples is a form of child abuse, God (or even nature if you wish to call God’s creation nature) shows a child is the natural product of a man and woman and is entitled to a man and woman to raise it.

The idea that homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia is a ruse.

Placing children with a same sex couple who will love, guide, nourish and encourage them is by no means abuse. Placing children with heterosexual couples who neglect, belittle and mistreat them (it happens!) is child abuse. Heterosexuality does not automatically equal good. I'm sure that we have both met heterosexual couples who have been given children by God, who are in no way qualified to raise those children.

I disagree, belief in the Bible as the reliable testimony of faith is crucial to what makes a Christian, one cant have a relationship with and have faith in someone whose testimony you don’t believe is reliable.
Nor did I say that, I said the Bible as the reliable testimony of faith is crucial to what makes a Christian, one cant have a relationship with and have faith in someone whose testimony you don’t believe is reliable.

Reliable testimony of faith? I'll allow that. Inerrant and without contradiction in every detail? I think not. Final authority in matters of history and science? Not a chance.

Ok garden rakes and shoes can be your interpretation, though it bears no relationship to the text. Can we get back to reality, I repeat, Jesus Christ’s NT teaching describes all food as clean to eat (Mark 7, Romans 14) but declares only man/woman faithful unions or celibacy (Matt 19, 1 Cor 7) and condemns same sex unions (1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1) Does that mean what it says or can one interpret it a meaning the big red bus went up the hill?

Big red busses can be your interpretation. And getting back to reality, the Bible says nothing whatever about same sex marriage...except by your interpretation.

No they don’t.

This was your reply to my statement that you had shown that Paul, Mark and Matthew agreed against Luke. I want to point out that your statement is a denial and not a refutation. We can drop the point if you wish, since it is off topic. But if you want to pursue it further, you'll have to show how Luke/Acts agrees with Paul, Mark and Matthew on the subject of clean foods.