Why do you care so much?

AlAyeti · Apr 3, 2010

OllieFranz said:
You are an intelligent person, so how is it that you can't see any difference between saying "All men are sinners. I am a sinner. You are a sinner. We are all agreed on that, but action X is not a sin as you claim it is, or at least not under all circumstances." And "Action X is never a sin, and anyone who does action X is exempt from all sin." All of your arguments keep coming back to arguing against the second statement no matter how carefully your opponents reiterate the first statement.

You do two things, you say that gay is a thought and gay is a deed, and neither are sinful. In fact each should be celebarted and enshrined as holiness in all Christian Churches. But, in the guidebook for Christian reality known as the New Testament, if one does not act on their thoughts they are not classified as what they are thinking.

So, if you want to claim that a person can "be" gay, just by what they think, or orientation as your worldview calls it, BUT, rejects the behavior and lives as a sound Christian should by NOT engaging IN homosexuality and of course NOT encouraging others to engage in homosexuality . . . then we are now in fellowship. I do though, reject the ideology of orientation, but certainly I agree with Jesus about lustful thoughts. I live that reality too.

The only real difference hangs on the religious viewpoint of whether action X is a sin.

If action X is gay sex, then action X is a sin.

In a country with both human rights and religious freedom, the government cannot curtail the rights of a group because of a religious difference.

You are saying that we as Christians should celebrate paganism or sin? Which is it? If we are allowed to vote at all, then we are allowed to vote our conscience, and that too should oppose homosexuality becoming a celebrated thing.

I agree with the claim that it is not under the circumstances a sin.

Then understand respectfully, we are no longer in fellowshipas Christains or as voters in a democratic society. You seem to prefer a gayocracy or a secularocracy. I can't agree to that.

But even for those who do go further than just the circumstances in which I believe in and clearly engage in sin, there are groups in this country who don't believe in the religious concept of sin at all.

I define these groups perfectly in my positions. Are you now saying we as Christians, yoke ourselves with them? Once again, I'll have to side with the New Testament and not your emotionalism.

The laws you push for would not only curtail the one group's basic human rights, but it would demolish this groups "religious" freedoms.

That's a statement with no foundation in reality. I don't try to shut down pagan religious places now. I do though define them for what they, are based on the exact same reality as I do with homosexuality.

Once you destroy one groups religious freedom, you destroy every group's religious freedom, since it is entirely based on the government's impartiality.

Are you under the impression that I am at war with "the government?" All I am doing is standing with "the faith delivered once to the saints." I just want it well known that gay is a sin and that we Christians are to call people out of homosexuality as we do out of paganism. I want it well documented that those that celebrate homosexuality are in the wrong. I agree with Paul, Peter and Jude on their views on the reality of the Gospel applied to sin and sinners. There is not one word of support for gay anything in the New Testament except for Ex-Gay ministries.

There are several religious groups together on the push to destroy religious freedom. What makes you so sure that if you succeed, it won't be one of the others who gets the preferred treatment? Do you really want to live in a country where the only allowed religion is Mormonism? or Catholicism? or Fred Phelps' version of Baptist?

Please note, that gay behavior is always and only compared to other wrongs. Mormons have had little success gleaning converts from Christian Churches, catholicism is where many Evangelicals come out from, and Fred Phelps has no supporters or those that celebrate his sins in any Church I know of, except for his own.

Now hopefully you realize, that it was from out of his mind that Phelps conjured up his behavior? He has no support anywhere FROM scripture for what he is doing.

And Jehovah's Witnesses claim that eating blood-rare steaks is a sin.

So do orthodox Jews. And orthodox Jews also do not believe Jesus is God, like JW's do. Now, in your logic, all of these beliefs and worldviews should be celebrated in The Church.

There are clear lines of dissent between historic Bible believing Christians and Catholics, Mormons and Jews that have rejected the Gospel. And no amount of laws are going to bridge that chasm.

Do you want them to declare that you are insisting that sin is not sin and to take away your basic human rights? The government cannot put your religious views over those of other groups. What you want the laws to do is wrong.

But you are on the gay side that IS taking away the human rights of "anti-gay" Christians (like Paul, Peter, Jude and every other voice in the New Testament), and making them a hate crime.

Why are you yoking yourself with unbelievers? Or is that too, an outdated old concept????

AlAyeti · Apr 3, 2010

OllieFranz said:
Canada and England do not have the US Bill of rights. Your freedom of religion and free speech rights are guaranteed.

We have seen what powers the EPA has been granted by this current regime in DC. The Constitution can be worked around for humanists to implement their will on the populace. It is with amazement that leftists take the "I know what's good for everyone" hubris as a political goal. We are watching the "powers and principalities" taking authority over The Church "by hook or by crook," as the sound old saying goes.

But even so, there is a big difference between free speech and incitement to riot.

Bull. The gay rights advocates see ANY and EVERY dissent and opposition of gay authority as hate speech, intolerance and worse. Listen to the anti-Prop * voices. Millions and millions of them. It's like reliving the mob in Sodom.

The laws in question, even those in Canada and England, are against incitement to riot sort of situations, and have rarely had to be enforced.

Are you trying to say that leftists will not use hate speech laws to silence the preaching against homosexuality? There are alarming and radical voices HERE at CF that make these statements with ease against me and any other voice of opposition to gay power and authority. I came name two people here quickly that if given power and authority for real, would charge us Christians with a crime and prosecute us.

It is true that there have been incidents where a Christian has been arrested for preaching against homosexuality. It almost always turns out that the "victim" deliberately provoked an arrest just to make headlines, and hopefully to prompt a repeal of the laws.

I call those kinds of people "Christians." No different than the ones Peter and Paul motivated. Excuse me, Jesus motivated.

When they finally achieve their objective of being arrested, it is usually for resorting to violence to get noticed, or on a long-standing and long-established law such as disturbing the peace or disrupting traffic, and there is plenty of evidence that they were given multiple opportunities to avoid arrest on those charges by just stepping a few steps to the side out of traffic.

Unfortunately, the "we'll see" comeback is to highlight on the atacks that will be coming at every good and decent Christian that holds out against the gay onslaught to silence Christian opposition. Becaase, if we are allowed a voice in the marketplace of a free exchange of ideas, the gay powers will lose, and they know it.

Finally a reason that is not religious! "I find Action X to be sick and perverted," is a legitimate reason for passing a law against Action X. A law does not have to make sense, but it must be enforced fairly.

To KEEP the definition of marriage as immutably man and woman is something that you would expect any honest person of any sexual taste to support.

But it cannot be a reason to curtail the basic human rights of those who perform Action X, especially if Action X is legal.

And you have proven two things. Christians were right about allowing one perversion to be licensed would allow all others to be licensed as well. The voice of the Prophet is heard even in secularism. Once perversion is legalized all perversion is legalized sooner or later. It all depends on how many of the perverted get to be legislators or are at the whim of their support group.

I find smoking to be repulsive. I could lobby to pass laws to make cigarettes illegal. But I can't lobby for laws to restrict smokers to living in a "smokers' ghetto" where there are only tar-paper shacks.

Not a good example for your goal to be met. Smokers have been harrassed to the point of being showcased for being losers BY LAW. They are made to to go away from others so that these others are not to be affected or infected with their BEHAVIORS. Yet, when Christians use the exact same methods for dealing with homosexuality, that is called a hate crime, intolerance and worse.

It doesn't matter in this thread. This thread is about what is legal, not what is moral. (Though I do not know of anyone who promotes "anything goes" -- this goes back to you not distinguishing between the two statements at the beginning of my last post.)

Just admit that you are advocating FOR Caesar and we can both rest in the reality of truth.

"Gay marriage" is real marriage. And as long as the government ties 1000+ laws to its recognition of marriage, it is obligated to recognize marriages equally.

There is no such thing as gay marriage. Only a perversion and redefining of what a real marriage "is." Civil unions give all of the legal benefits you desire for your homosexual club members to be free and awarded.

Marriage for Christians, is how Jesus described it to be when He was quoting God.

This is a Christian website and your thread is in the Christians only section.

The championing of secularism (Caesar rendering) is inappropriate here.

BigBadWlf · Apr 3, 2010

Brennin said:
That is false. Christians have been punished simply for condemning homosexual acts. See the cases of Ake Green and Stephen Boissoin, for example.

I am not surprised you ignored the fact that the ruling against Boissoin was overturned
In 2002, Stephen Boissoin, the executive director of Concerned Christian Coalition, wrote a letter which was published in the Red Deer Advocate. This letter described gay people as perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities. He declared war on gay people and called for Canadians to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to start taking back what the enemy has taken from you. It also made numerous false assertions about gays and lesbians as well as fed into well known false stereotypes
Within the next few weeks in Red Deer, a teenager others believed to be gay was assaulted and beaten, by a follower of Boissoin.
An Associate Professor at the University of Calgary, Darren Lund, tied the two events together and filed suit against Boissoin under the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Boissoin and his sympathizers then adopted a campaign of personal destruction against Dr. Lund.
On November 30, 2007, the commission found: In balancing the freedom afforded under the Charter and the degree of protection afforded through the provincial legislation, the Panel considered s. 2(b) of the Charter regarding the fundamental freedoms of conscience and religion, the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including the freedom of the press and other media, the freedom of peaceful assembly and the freedom of association. The broad protection granted to religious freedom did not override the protection afforded under human rights legislation against hatred and contempt. Further, the publications exposure of homosexuals to hatred and contempt overrode the freedom of speech afforded in the Charter. http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/1249.asp

One year later the finding was overruled.

And I am quite glad that it was overruled. I believe that free speech even vile, hateful speech filled with false witness such as Boissoins is protected. Better still when such hatful words are made public it exposes the anti-gay forces for what they are and allows people to examine false statements for themselves and see the pain violence and suffering hatred breeds.

BigBadWlf · Apr 3, 2010

Simonline said:
You're missing the point. Heterosexuality within the context of marriage and family life is both sanctioned (nay, commanded (Gen.1:26-28)) and blessed by the Creator.

A variation of the rather silly God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve argument. This argument says God will only bless marriages exactly like Adam and Eve, although God never makes that assertion in the Bible. For example, only two chapters after Adam and Eve, God starts blessing polygamous marriage

Outside of marriage and family life all heterosexual activity is as condemned

except for the use of concubines…which is never condemned

and then there is using female slaves for sex….which is never condemned.

Abraham never got into trouble for forcefully impregnating Hagar

David’s adulteress affair wasn’t a sin as 1 Kings clearly states David’s only sin was the killing of Uriah

The use of rape to force girls into marriage isn’t a sin Judges 21:10-24

The rape of female prisoners of war isn’t a sin Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Judges 5:30

and then there is the uncomfortable fact that adultery is something that can only happen with a married (or betrothed) woman

as all homosexual activity but there is no context in which homosexuality as a practise and/or lifestyle is sanctioned by the Creator precisely because homosexuality is a violation of the created order and the deeply profound spiritual relationship between 'male' and 'female' (see David Pawson's book to which I referred in my first post).

homosexuality is not condemned by any literal reading of the bible.

I remain amazed at how those who demand everyone interpret the bible literally are the first to reject the literal interpretations when it comes to this topic

Like I said earlier, to deprive someone of basic ammenities simply because of their sexual orientation is morally wrong but to oppose the exultation of homosexuality (practise and lifestyle)

What is this “lifestyle” you are writing about? Is it anything like the black life-style?

Click to expand...

as being equal to (and in some quarters 'better than'?!) heterosexual practise and lifestyle

evidence for this assertion?

(but solely within the context of marriage) is a moral necessity.

why?

Click to expand...

The very fact that you are arguing for homosexual 'marriage' tells me that, like so many others (including many heterosexual Christians within the Church), you don't understand the fundamentally and profoundly spiritual nature of human marriage between a biological male and a biological female as being a 'cameo', 'type', 'representation' of the 'master relationship' between the Creator and His human creatures (made as we are in His likeness (Gen.1:26-27)) Who, respectively, are represented throughout the Scriptures as Male and Female [Ever wondered why Biblical marriage is only ever 'until death do us part'?!]

can you please cite chapter and verse containing “till death do us part”?

BigBadWlf · Apr 3, 2010

Simonline said:
So what you're really saying is that Christians should keep silent, let gay people live exactly how they please

The right to be prejudiced ends when it interferes with the rights and legal protections of others

Brennin · Apr 3, 2010

BigBadWlf said:
I am not surprised you ignored the fact that the ruling against Boissoin was overturned
In 2002, Stephen Boissoin, the executive director of Concerned Christian Coalition, wrote a letter which was published in the Red Deer Advocate. This letter described gay people as perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities. He declared war on gay people and called for Canadians to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to start taking back what the enemy has taken from you. It also made numerous false assertions about gays and lesbians as well as fed into well known false stereotypes
Within the next few weeks in Red Deer, a teenager others believed to be gay was assaulted and beaten, by a follower of Boissoin.
An Associate Professor at the University of Calgary, Darren Lund, tied the two events together and filed suit against Boissoin under the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Boissoin and his sympathizers then adopted a campaign of personal destruction against Dr. Lund.
On November 30, 2007, the commission found: In balancing the freedom afforded under the Charter and the degree of protection afforded through the provincial legislation, the Panel considered s. 2(b) of the Charter regarding the fundamental freedoms of conscience and religion, the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including the freedom of the press and other media, the freedom of peaceful assembly and the freedom of association. The broad protection granted to religious freedom did not override the protection afforded under human rights legislation against hatred and contempt. Further, the publications exposure of homosexuals to hatred and contempt overrode the freedom of speech afforded in the Charter. http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/1249.asp

One year later the finding was overruled.

And I am quite glad that it was overruled. I believe that free speech even vile, hateful speech filled with false witness such as Boissoins is protected. Better still when such hatful words are made public it exposes the anti-gay forces for what they are and allows people to examine false statements for themselves and see the pain violence and suffering hatred breeds.

It does not matter that it was eventually overruled. Prior to that he was fined and ordered not to discuss homosexuality at all. You cannot excuse an injustice by saying "well, it was corrected later." The fact of the matter is that his case (and that of Ake Green) expressly refutes the bogus claim I was addressing.

Brennin · Apr 3, 2010

OllieFranz said:
Two counter-examples do not prove a statement qualified with the phrase "in almost cases" false unless there are so few incidents that these two cases make up a significant portion of the total cases. And in this incidence, the two counter-examples are flawed as counter-examples.

Two cases is two more than you provided. I look forward to your tallying of all the cases to demonstrate your claim, which, at present, constitutes mere assertion.

The Åke Green case does not make my statement false for two reasons. The first, and more superficial reason is that my statement was about the laws in England and Canada, and the Green case was in Sweden. The second is that he was found not guilty under the Swedish law. It was found that it did not apply to his sermons.

Similarly, Boissoin's case was dismissed, and it was found that his letters did not fall under the "Hate Speech" law. Nor was Mr Boissoin ever arrested.

As I wrote to the other poster, you cannot excuse an injustice by claiming it was eventually corrected.

AlAyeti · Apr 3, 2010

BigBadWlf said:
A variation of the rather silly God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve argument.

Only if you view Jesus as a comedian. He reaffrimed marriage as man and woman. Actually defining it as only one man and one woman. As we see from his disciples beliefs.

This argument says God will only bless marriages exactly like Adam and Eve, although God never makes that assertion in the Bible. For example, only two chapters after Adam and Eve, God starts blessing polygamous marriage

And Jesus put an end to that. And notice no where does he even mention gay marriage.

except for the use of concubines…which is never condemned

and then there is using female slaves for sex….which is never condemned.

Neither is genocide is it? inappropriate content isn't condemned either. Do we start celebrating inappropriate content in Churches? Jesus never mentioned a word about inappropriate content.

Abraham never got into trouble for forcefully impregnating Hagar

Forcefully? Do you havev backup for that accusation? Hagar obviously thought she was becoming part of the family.

David’s adulteress affair wasn’t a sin as 1 Kings clearly states David’s only sin was the killing of Uriah

The use of rape to force girls into marriage isn’t a sin Judges 21:10-24

You want to expound on why the Benjaminites were so discriminated against? They look to be the world's first "progressives." The other tribe of Israel shunned them. And yet, as we see throughout the Bible, one true natured person comes through even filthy environments. That is why we anti-gay Christians hold out hope for those that enjoy homosexuality to be in reach.

David's Psalm 51 is the blueprint we follow.

The rape of female prisoners of war isn’t a sin Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Judges 5:30

And the rape of prisoners is the grounds to start celebrating sodomy in The Church? That's an odd theological position even for a liberal such as yourself.

. . . and then there is the uncomfortable fact that adultery is something that can only happen with a married (or betrothed) woman

Judah was in danger of being stoned as well as Tamar. Both adulterers were to be stoned. Is that not Torah?

homosexuality is not condemned by any literal reading of the bible.

Same-gender sex acts are though. By any literal reading of the Bible from Genesis to Jude.

I remain amazed at how those who demand everyone interpret the bible literally are the first to reject the literal interpretations when it comes to this topic

Literally, there is not one same-gender marriage shown as such and celebrated as a marriage ANYWHERE in the Bible. Literal read or fantasy read.

can you please cite chapter and verse containing “till

death do us part”?

Matthew 19:4-6

"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.

Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Nope, Jesus never mentioned a word about homosexuals.

Neither, obviously, did God "at the beginning" all the way until the end.

*Marriage

AlAyeti · Apr 3, 2010

Brennin said:
It does not matter that it was eventually overruled. Prior to that he was fined and ordered not to discuss homosexuality at all. You cannot excuse an injustice by saying "well, it was corrected later." The fact of the matter is that his case (and that of Ake Green) expressly refutes the bogus claim I was addressing.

Just a quick tour through gay activist websites (including all liberal and progressive, Democrat orgs, athiest and humanist ones as well) gives one more than a strong impression that any and all Christians will be relegated to hate crimes perpetrators classification. Including, charges, conviction and all, for just reasding out loud Romans 1 and 2, when the political environment permits. Which has been shown, is rapidly becoming the environment in the western world.

AlAyeti · Apr 3, 2010

Ollie,

Institute for Welcoming Resources - USA Welcoming Churches

Here's all you need for your caring to be fulfilled.

Sorry, I can only walk with up the sidewalk at these listed addresses.

OllieFranz · Apr 3, 2010

Brennin said:
As I wrote to the other poster, you cannot excuse an injustice by claiming it was eventually corrected.

But the injustice did not come from the law, it came from someone abusing the law. It was properly applying the law that corrected the injustice.

Simonline · Apr 4, 2010

BigBadWlf said:
A variation of the rather silly God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve argument. This argument says God will only bless marriages exactly like Adam and Eve, although God never makes that assertion in the Bible. For example, only two chapters after Adam and Eve, God starts blessing polygamous marriage

except for the use of concubineswhich is never condemned

and then there is using female slaves for sex.which is never condemned.

Abraham never got into trouble for forcefully impregnating Hagar

Davids adulteress affair wasnt a sin as 1 Kings clearly states Davids only sin was the killing of Uriah

The use of rape to force girls into marriage isnt a sin Judges 21:10-24

The rape of female prisoners of war isnt a sin Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Judges 5:30

None of which is part of the New Covenant (and therefore irrelevent).

BigBadWlf said:
and then there is the uncomfortable fact that adultery is something that can only happen with a married (or betrothed) woman

So. in your reality, single females don't commit adultery with married men?!

BigBadWlf said:
homosexuality is not condemned by any literal reading of the bible.

Really (Rom.1:18-32; 1Cor.6:9)?!

BigBadWlf said:
I remain amazed at how those who demand everyone interpret the bible literally are the first to reject the literal interpretations when it comes to this topic

It isn't a question of always interpreting the Bible literally but of interpreting the Bible correctly according to context (not all Scripture is meant to be interpreted literally). However, the subject of homosexuality is one that should be interpreted literally and as I have consistently said throughout this thread, the reason why homosexuality is a sin is because it is a violation of the created order (see my first post on this thread).

BigBadWlf said:
can you please cite chapter and verse containing till death do us part?

No, of course not. It isn't a direct quote from the Scriptures but from the traditional Christian wedding ceremony based as it is upon the teachings of the Scriptures in relation to Judeo-Christian marriage (under the New Covenant) and the created order.

Simonline.

Simonline · Apr 4, 2010

BigBadWlf said:
The right to be prejudiced ends when it interferes with the rights and legal protections of others

'Rights' and 'legal protections' under whose law, that of God or Man (Don't forget, when the Messiah is calling you to account for your humanistic rationalization of 'gay rights', to recite what you have written here)?!

Truth, by definition, will always be prejudiced against falsehood.

Good, by definition, will always be prejudiced against evil.

Right, by definition, will always be prejudiced against wrong.

That's because Reality is Absolute rather than relative.

Simonline.

theVirginian · Apr 5, 2010

OllieFranz said:
This question is aimed at those of you who are committed to attacking the supposed "gay agenda."... Why do you care so much?

My gripe about the gay agenda is the lie it feeds to the fence sitting teen who is going through mental Hell deciding whether to take the next step from temptation to action being told it's useless to resist because this is how you were made so you might as well give in. Bull. There isn't a temptation or sin under the sun too strong for the Living God to break the back of, with our cooperation, and I'm not talking about some silly psychology remedy.

Archivist · Apr 5, 2010

Brennin said:
As I wrote to the other poster, you cannot excuse an injustice by claiming it was eventually corrected.

But one of the great hallmarks of the Common Law system is the ability to correct past mistakes. The US Supreme Court was certainly wrong in the case of Plessey v. Ferguson, but the issue was later corrected in Brown v. Board of Education. No that doesn't excuse the past injustice, but it corrects it for future generations.

OllieFranz · Apr 5, 2010

theVirginian said:
My gripe about the gay agenda is the lie it feeds to the fence sitting teen who is going through mental Hell deciding whether to take the next step from temptation to action being told it's useless to resist because this is how you were made so you might as well give in. Bull. There isn't a temptation or sin under the sun too strong for the Living God to break the back of, with our cooperation, and I'm not talking about some silly psychology remedy.

You are combining two separate things.

Sexual temptation which the world encourages giving in to -- both the temptation and the worldly encouragement apply just as much to cross-sex temptation as to same-sex temptation -- in fact the cross-sex temptation is far more represented than the same-sex temptation. For each individual temptation God will grant us the strength to resist, but the sex drive is so strong that without Grace, the longing for, the need for sex grows. Paul recognized this in 1 Corinthians 7. That's why he reminds us that one of the purposes of marriage is to channel the sex drive into an acceptable path. "It is better to marry than to burn." Within the marriage, each partner is to make sure his/her spouse can expend any pent up "burning." Each is to treat the other's sexual needs and sexual schedule as more important than his/her own.

The other thing is the fact that orientation is generally not chosen. That if a man is not attracted to women, then courting and eventually marrying a woman will be cheating her of a partner that can satisfy all of her sexual needs, and cheating himself as well. Recognizing this fact is not the same as " being told it's useless to resist because this is how you were made so you might as well give in." Although we do get that message from the world, it is, as I explained above, a message that the world also sends to heterosexuals.

So a Christian gay should not indulge in inappropriate (that is, extramarital) sex. He should not marry a woman and cheat her and himself, and he may not have been given the Grace to live as a life-long celibate and resist "burning." What alternative is left?

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
1 Corinthians 7:1-9

Does this mean that there is no one who teaches the conflated message that you expressed? No. I am sure there are a lot of worldly gays who do. But that message is not an "agenda." Neither in the churches, where those churches that accept gay members call them to come out of the world, and give up their sexual sins, just as they and other churches call heterosexuals to come out of the world and give up their sexual sins. Nor in politics, where the goal of the various movements is simply fair and equitable treatment in housing, education, employment opportunities, and taxes, including marriage taxes. Sure there are extremist fringe groups. Every movement and counter-movement has extremist fringe groups, but they do not set the "agenda."

BigBadWlf · Apr 5, 2010

AlAyeti said:
Only if you view Jesus as a comedian. He reaffrimed marriage as man and woman. Actually defining it as only one man and one woman. As we see from his disciples beliefs.

And Jesus put an end to that. And notice no where does he even mention gay marriage.

Could you please cite chapter and verse where Jesus explicitly condemns or forbids polygamy?

Neither is genocide is it? inappropriate content isn't condemned either. Do we start celebrating inappropriate content in Churches? Jesus never mentioned a word about inappropriate content.

Jesus also never mentioned a word about gays or same gendered marriage

Same-gender sex acts are though. By any literal reading of the Bible from Genesis to Jude.

Actuallyno

Matthew 19:4-6

Which doesnt include anything about till death do us part

BigBadWlf · Apr 5, 2010

OllieFranz said:
But the injustice did not come from the law, it came from someone abusing the law. It was properly applying the law that corrected the injustice.

Im pretty sure you werent supposed to notice that

BigBadWlf · Apr 5, 2010

Simonline said:
[/color][/font][/size][/color]

None of which is part of the New Covenant (and therefore irrelevent).

Yet you were the one bringing up the Old Testament to attack a minority. Why is what is in the OT relevant when you use it?

So. in your reality, single females don't commit adultery with married men?!

In John 8 we read about the Pharisees bringing a woman they caught in the act of adultery. and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. SO where was the man she was being adulterous with? Why wasnt he in trouble?

Really (Rom.1:18-32; 1Cor.6:9)?!

A literal reading of these does not condemn gays and lesbians.

Corinthians has a problem with translation of the word arsenokoitesthere is no evidence that this word meant homosexual if you have such evidence please post it so we can all read it.

And Romans is pulled right out of context

It isn't a question of always interpreting the Bible literally but of interpreting the Bible correctly according to context (not all Scripture is meant to be interpreted literally). However, the subject of homosexuality is one that should be interpreted literally and as I have consistently said throughout this thread, the reason why homosexuality is a sin is because it is a violation of the created order (see my first post on this thread).

SOthe bible should, not be interpreted literallyexcept where you want it to be interpreted literallyand then only in accordance with your wishes

No, of course not. It isn't a direct quote from the Scriptures but from the traditional Christian wedding ceremony based as it is upon the teachings of the Scriptures in relation to Judeo-Christian marriage (under the New Covenant) and the created order.

Yet you made the claim

"[Ever wondered why Biblical marriage is only ever 'until death do us part'?!] "

BigBadWlf · Apr 5, 2010

Simonline said:
'Rights' and 'legal protections' under whose law, that of God or Man (Don't forget, when the Messiah is calling you to account for your humanistic rationalization of 'gay rights', to recite what you have written here)?!

Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism Romans 2:11

Why do you care so much?

Just a guy

Just a guy

BigBadWlf

Guest

BigBadWlf

Guest

BigBadWlf

Guest

Wielder of the Holy Cudgel of Faith

Wielder of the Holy Cudgel of Faith

Just a guy

Just a guy

Just a guy

Senior Member

The Inquisitor

The Inquisitor

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

BigBadWlf

Guest

BigBadWlf

Guest

BigBadWlf

Guest

BigBadWlf

Guest

Similar threads