Dehumanizing Stereotypes

[Caylin]

So, then is a a celibate straight person not straight?

 

[Caylin]

Er weird double post thing.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

I dismantle gay theology as easy as pointing out "mipselled" words that need to be corrected too.

And yet you leave me waiting.

By the way, I think you meant "easily." Do you want to play at spelling and grammar or shall we discuss issues?

Gays are demading that Christians submit to their authority. That will never happen. Never.

As far as I can tell, gays are asking for civil equality. The Christians among them are asking for full inclusion in the life of the Church. Both of these things seem to stand a pretty good chance of happening.

You people can have the buildings. The Church is a group of people. Repenting sinners every single one of them.

The buildings can be quite pretty, but I agree, the church is a community of people gathered around Word (and my church would also say Sacrament) marked by mutual love, and compelled to service in the world. Repenting sinners...check...some of them are gay repenting sinners.

It is a fact. From the 60's onward, we have seen a relentless agenda at work. Now it is at the " gay marriage" phase. That is not the worst of it yet though. It will get darker for the Church as the gay agenda takes in more political power. As we have seen already, Gays and the Church do not mix.

Honestly, I'd like to see a copy of this gay agenda. Although the very concept is ripe for parody, I'll let the jokes go by for now. You seem to believe that there is a vast homosexual conspiracy aimed at world domination and destruction of the Church. I don't buy conspiracy theories easily.

Original sin. It needs to be repented of.

I'm all about repenting. It's a way of life with me. I do it every day, sometimes more frequently than that. I recommend it to everyone.

Why be critical of Christians for just desiring to follow Christ the way it has been laid out to do so?

I have no issue with you following Christ to the best of your ability and understanding. It's what I strive to do as well. I just want gay people, and others, to know that you don't speak for all of Christianity.

Spin will not get homosexuality into the Church.

Nor will your spin keep gays out of the kingdom.

It is part of the gay agenda to get homosexuality from perversion to every classroom in the world. There is a very concerted gay agenda. The enlightenment just lit the current fire we are suffering from it.

There's that mythical agenda again. The Enlightenment wasn't such a bad thing, by the way. It brought us lots of knowledge and plenty of scientific and technological advances. It wasn't the end all and be all of historic eras, but I wouldn't want to go back to the way things were before it.

Christians will survive this gay activism. I wish Christians wouldn't even mention the words gay or homosexuality. Just leave these people alone to their own lives and their own demise.

I'm sure that gay people would be delighted if you did just that.

Repent and be baptised. That includes homosexuality.

I think you mean "homosexuals." An orientation cannot repent. With that well-intended correction, I would agree with you. All people, Jews and Greeks, men and women, slaves and free, gay and straight, need to repent.

You should start. There is no compatibility of the gay agenda and the Church. The two are opposites.

If I believed in a gay agenda, I still wouldn't agree with you.

There is actually not even ONE place in all of scripture that supports and promotes "homosexuality." Not even one. But I could present dozens that oppose it. DOZENS . . . and more.

No, there are no places in Scripture that speak positively about homosexual behavior. And there are no places in Scripture that speak about homosexuality at all. But there are not dozens of passages opposing homosexuality.

In fact, there are five passages in the Bible that say anything about homosexual acts. Two are in Leviticus. Two use the words "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai" which are notoriously difficult to translate. One is in the first chapter of Romans and is always taken out of context when used as a blanket condemnation of homosexuals.

Five verses and three fingers pointing back at you.

You could start with the letter of Jude to fellow Christians and work back from there. Jude includes more than a few scriptures that apply to gay religiosity and its proponents. Then of course there is many many scriptures in Peter's writings that apply to gay behavior. And so on and so on.

Jude...Good book. I read through it in the Greek a little while ago. His style is difficult, but not nearly as hard as 2 Peter. Even in the Greek it says nothing about "gay religiosity." It does encourage a vigorous defense of the faith. It also contains some interesting allusions to extra-biblical literature.

I've read the Petrine literature too. Not a word in there that is specifically about homosexuality. Lots of stuff that applies to all believers though.

Why can't homosexuals and their non and anti Christian supporters (which are legion even on 'this' webiste) respect the beliefs and liives of Christians that can not approve of homosexuality as a matter of choice? I thought liberalism was all about choice? But then again, I know many liberals too. Choice to them means THEIR choices.

Let's see. Disagreeing with you makes one "non" or "anti Christian" Well, I disagree with you about that, too. I respect your beliefs just fine. You're welcome to hold them no matter how untenable I find them. No one says that you have to accept homosexuals or homosexuality in any way. That doesn't mean that you can dictate civic policy to others, however.

As for your characterization of liberals...now it is my turn to invoke the straw man.

Peace.

 

[Uphill Battle]

As far as I can tell, gays are asking for civil equality. The Christians among them are asking for full inclusion in the life of the Church. Both of these things seem to stand a pretty good chance of happening.

whatever happened to separation of Church and State? If their asking for civil equality, let them have it. I don't know why Christians argue against Civil liberties for gays... It's hardly like Civil law and God's law are neccessarily synonymous. However, the full inclusion in the life of the Church, has nothing to do with civil equality. Again I forward, why do gays who want to worship, insist on trying to be included into a congregation that believes their lifestyle is sinful? there are churches that accept homosexuality... why do they not go to them? The only logical reasoning I can find, is that they are LOOKING to create a stink about the issue. A kind of "look at those bigots over there" type of publicity, where they want the red lollipop that they already have, but the blue one too.

I have no issue with you following Christ to the best of your ability and understanding. It's what I strive to do as well. I just want gay people, and others, to know that you don't speak for all of Christianity.

so long then, as you accept the fact that the same applies to you.

I'm sure that gay people would be delighted if you did just that.

from my experience, that isn't true. Everyone who has a pet cause, isn't looking to be ignored, be it pro gay, or anti gay.

No, there are no places in Scripture that speak positively about homosexual behavior. And there are no places in Scripture that speak about homosexuality at all. But there are not dozens of passages opposing homosexuality.

Personally, I've seen the interpretations given that the classic "condemnation" of homosexuality is mistranslated, or out of context... I've never seen it presented in a compelling manner though. To be frank, It's always felt very much like a "making it say what I want to" kind of feel. Just my opinion.

 

[Zecryphon]

Again I forward, why do gays who want to worship, insist on trying to be included into a congregation that believes their lifestyle is sinful?

Maybe because they believe it to be sinful as well and wish to repent and also to thank and worship God who sent His son to die for their sins as well as ours. But I think if they said that publicly they'd be attacked by other homosexuals who would just tell them that "they're being brainwashed by those anti-gay, conservative, homophoblic, judgmental, Christians."

An equally valid question can be posed here to heterosexual Christians. Why would heterosexual Christians want to be included in a congregation that thinks divorce and looking at pornography is sinful as well? People worship God not because of what He thinks is sinful. They worship God to thank Him and give praise to Him for sending His son to die on the cross to pay for the sins of all mankind, not just the sins of heterosexual mankind. This whole gay Christian vs. heterosexual Christian thing is going to lead eventually to a segregation of the individual congregation. On one side we'll have the "good, righteous, repentant and heterosexual Christians" and on the other side we'll have the "evil, unrepentant, wicked, hell-bound gay Christians". The problem with this is that in the eyes of God we all are wicked and deserving of Hell.

The only thing that separates us from Hell is not what we consider sinful or not. It's the redeeming, sin-cleansing and forgiving blood of Jesus Christ that was shed for all sinners, regardless of something as trivial as sexual orientation. I want homosexuals in the pews, right next to me, hearing great law and gospel sermons, so that they too will know why they are sinners, instead of just being told by others that they are.

 

[exxxys]

..they did a good job raising you

Hee, thanks

 

[AmericanCatholic]

So, then is a a celibate straight person not straight?

Is it not enough to simply call them celibate?

 

[Uphill Battle]

I can see both sides of the arguement.

Gays will say it's an orientation. They are Gay, whether they act on it or not. That could be true enough, I suppose, given that you could ogle nothing but the same sex, and fantasize only about the same sex, or have no interest in the opposite. Caveat is of course, that all of those things actually describe an action of a sort.

those who believe Homosexuality is sinful, I can see the argument regarding action being the defining point as well. For example, is a person a thief, if they think about stealing? if they are tempted to steal? no, it's when they actually steal that they become a thief.

I think there is more mud than water in the glass though... nobody is going to convince anyone else of anything here, that much is crystal clear.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

And yet you leave me waiting.

By the way, I think you meant "easily." Do you want to play at spelling and grammar or shall we discuss issues?

Please truth is always helpful. Typos are just zeal in print. You'll never prove gay sex is for Christians.

As far as I can tell, gays are asking for civil equality.

Secular, humanistic and pagan and godless. Notice "who" supports gays even here. Pagans, Atheists, Liberals, Progressives, and fellow homosexuals. Not one Apostle though. And Jesus, we know His immutable stance on what (or rather, who) constitutes a marriage.

It's not two guys OR, two girls. "God" didn't design it that way.

Of course it appears the Jesus said that not everyone has to agree with Him. But I'm thinking the Apostles did. And, it's clear from their writings, they did.

What say ye?

The Christians among them are asking for full inclusion in the life of the Church. Both of these things seem to stand a pretty good chance of happening.

Only in Churches that alter the ruth and preach "another Gospel." Not one Apostle presented anything even remotely gay affirming. And Jesus, His view on marriage as a man and a woman is immutable. That "gay marriage "will "enter the world" is no surprise at all.

The buildings can be quite pretty, but I agree, the church is a community of people gathered around Word (and my church would also say Sacrament) marked by mutual love, and compelled to service in the world. Repenting sinners...check...some of them are gay repenting sinners.

Not in Liberal Churches. Pretty buildings yes, but repenting sinners? Especialy Gay ones? That isn;t happening. Affirmation and appoval of sin is what is happening. Believe me, the buildings you guys can have. Rust and moths and all.

Honestly, I'd like to see a copy of this gay agenda. Although the very concept is ripe for parody, I'll let the jokes go by for now. You seem to believe that there is a vast homosexual conspiracy aimed at world domination and destruction of the Church. I don't buy conspiracy theories easily.

Churches are targeted as were the public schools. It is a very well laid out agenda. Powers and principalities run. Ever read Michaal Swift's little joke? Someone in the Gay anti-Christian world took it seriously.

I'm all about repenting. It's a way of life with me. I do it every day, sometimes more frequently than that. I recommend it to everyone.

If you recommend it to the "Gay Christians" over at Soulforce, they will ban you from the website.

I have no issue with you following Christ to the best of your ability and understanding. It's what I strive to do as well. I just want gay people, and others, to know that you don't speak for all of Christianity.

Well I'll take YOUR authority under consideration. Geez, thanks. I just agree with the Apostles. As did the original converts to the faith delivered only once to the Saints.

Nor will your spin keep gays out of the kingdom.

Only repentance and the forgiveness of sins gets one into the kingdom. I have never condemned anyone in any thread I have posted in. I do however, judge words and deeds.

There's that mythical agenda again. The Enlightenment wasn't such a bad thing, by the way. It brought us lots of knowledge and plenty of scientific and technological advances. It wasn't the end all and be all of historic eras, but I wouldn't want to go back to the way things were before it.

You mean like before nuclear and smart bombs? The Agenda has gone from Neitzsche to Elton John. From the hippy sixties to the Hippies now being our Judges making new laws. From a "gay lifestyle" to gay marriage. From we just don't want to get beat up, to forcing every single person on earth to affirm gay sex or suffering legal consequences. The Gay Agenda in action. Or rather, activism.

I think you mean "homosexuals." An orientation cannot repent. With that well-intended correction, I would agree with you. All people, Jews and Greeks, men and women, slaves and free, gay and straight, need to repent.

Yet, if you ask "Gays" to go and sin no more, you could face criminal charges. There is nothing contrite in the gay culture.

If I believed in a gay agenda, I still wouldn't agree with you.

Of course. It means following the Christian agenda to do that. There is most definately a Gay Agenda. It is verifiable every single day. Especially in our school system. It has "progressed" past just rights and into (of course) indoctrination and recruitment.

No, there are no places in Scripture that speak positively about homosexual behavior. And there are no places in Scripture that speak about homosexuality at all. But there are not dozens of passages opposing homosexuality.

Far more than dozens. Judes letter and Peters could be used just about from begining to end. Gay sex is antithetical to Christian life. No matter the neologism.

In fact, there are five passages in the Bible that say anything about homosexual acts. Two are in Leviticus. Two use the words "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai" which are notoriously difficult to translate. One is in the first chapter of Romans and is always taken out of context when used as a blanket condemnation of homosexuals.

Start a new thread and we'll go at it there. So many places in the New Testament can be used to show gay sex as incompatible with a Christian life, that I would need much more space to post them. I started a thread in morality and ethics to deal with gay theology of five places they use. I usually leave Paul alone. His "clobber passages" against gay sex are too easy to use. paul knew all about same-gender sex acts, and he was no wimp about detailing its inappropriateness for Christians to engage in.

Five verses and three fingers pointing back at you.

The entire New Testament is far more than five fingers. Not one place where gay sex is supported and many places where it is opposed.

Jude...Good book. I read through it in the Greek a little while ago. His style is difficult, but not nearly as hard as 2 Peter. Even in the Greek it says nothing about "gay religiosity." It does encourage a vigorous defense of the faith. It also contains some interesting allusions to extra-biblical literature.

Hmm, you think that is going to work on me and Christians that know what's up? Jude talks about "Gay religious leaders," quite vividly. You know it and I know it.

I've read the Petrine literature too. Not a word in there that is specifically about homosexuality. Lots of stuff that applies to all believers though.

There is a reason why the Gay Agenda desires the word "marriage." Peter talks very much to and against what we call now: gay sex. Leaving the world and its ways. Notice he mentions old freinds mocking the convert?

Let's see. Disagreeing with you makes one "non" or "anti Christian"

You make a stand like you are here to correct me, and you put words in my mouth? (I am not straw.) I just agree with the Apostles. They (also) disagree with the4 Gay Agenda. Now, as they did then.

Well, I disagree with you about that, too. I respect your beliefs just fine. You're welcome to hold them no matter how untenable I find them.

And you are free to follow gay heresy wherever it is comfortable to practice it. But, it will never be in "the" Christian Church. No matter your political proclamation above. You may have an address or two to affirm gay sex and its practioners, but it will be in buildings with people that alter and devalue the scriptures. You have not one Apostolic voice supporting gay sex for Christians. You may have Spong and Crossan, and many atheists and pagans on your side (as evidenced here at this site), but the New Testament witness is not on your side.

No one says that you have to accept homosexuals or homosexuality in any way. That doesn't mean that you can dictate civic policy to others, however.

Hmm, I'm sorry, what was it you wrote above?

"The Christians among them are asking for full inclusion in the life of the Church. Both of these things seem to stand a pretty good chance of happening."

It will never happen. You have to use a "different Gospel," for gay sex and "gay marriage" to be approved of in a so-called Church.

As for your characterization of liberals...now it is my turn to invoke the straw man.

There is nothing straw like at all in liberals. They disregard Biblical truth every time it disagrees with their anti-Christian statements and beliefs. Like say "gay marriage."

Peace.

That doesn't look likely for Christians that dare oppose the Gay Agenda.

 

[Gishin]

What do you expect, for the gays who are constantly under attack to just take it?

 

[Zecryphon]

So Gishin, what's the solution then?

 

[exxxys]

So Gishin, what's the solution then?

The soloution is to keep Christians from picking apart the private lives of others, where they have no business being.

 

[Zecryphon]

If the sex life of homosexuals were indeed kept private, there would be nothing for Christians to pick apart. But since homosexuals have brought their bedroom behavior out into the public square and declared that there's nothing wrong with it, Christians and others can now pick it apart. You don't get to have it both ways. If people are going to make their private behavior a matter of public record, then they have to deal with the public's reaction.

 

[OllieFranz]

If the sex life of homosexuals were indeed kept private, there would be nothing for Christians to pick apart. But since homosexuals have brought their bedroom behavior out into the public square and declared that there's nothing wrong with it, Christians and others can now pick it apart. You don't get to have it both ways. If people are going to make their private behavior a matter of public record, then they have to deal with the public's reaction.

Homosexuals have never been allowed to keep their sex life private. They have always been dragged into the public eye. In both of the Supreme Court cases, the issue began when the police, acting on information that proved to be false, broke into someone's house and found him in bed with another man, and arrested them for sodomy. They were keeping their sex life private until the government interfered.

The Stonewall riots, which are usually considered to be the beginning of the Gay Pride movement were a reaction against constant police raids on private clubs. Before the riots, very seldom did evidence of orientation happen in "public" and even then mostly in the immediate neighborhoods where no one minded, except the "watchdogs of society" safe in their suburban neighborhoods, who sicced the police on them in the first place.

Even today, the only way that most gays "bring their bedroom behavior out into the public square" is in little things like holding hands, kissing, hugging, etc. -- the exact same things heterosexual couples do in public. Maybe we should outlaw any public displays of affection. Then maybe you can put the blinders back on.

 

[exxxys]

If the sex life of homosexuals were indeed kept private, there would be nothing for Christians to pick apart. But since homosexuals have brought their bedroom behavior out into the public square and declared that there's nothing wrong with it, Christians and others can now pick it apart. You don't get to have it both ways. If people are going to make their private behavior a matter of public record, then they have to deal with the public's reaction.

The majority of the public is fine with it. it's just those who are obessed with the lives of others. If everyone would just mind their own business, things would be a lot better for others.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

The majority of the public is fine with it. it's just those who are obessed with the lives of others. If everyone would just mind their own business, things would be a lot better for others.

If you are going to accept public opinion as a determinant of policy, then while homosexuality may be tolerable, gay marriage is certainly rejected in the United States.

 

[David Brider]

Is the orientation defined by something other than the act towards which it is oriented?

Homosexual orientation isn't oriented towards an act. Homosexual orientation is oriented towards people.

A person isn't homosexual because they engage in, or want to engage in, homosexual sex. A person is homosexual because they tend to be romantically/physically/sexually attracted to people of the same gender as themselves.

 

[exxxys]

If you are going to accept public opinion as a determinant of policy, then while homosexuality may be tolerable, gay marriage is certainly rejected in the United States.

By Christians. Most of the US is Christian.

 

[Maren]

If the sex life of homosexuals were indeed kept private, there would be nothing for Christians to pick apart. But since homosexuals have brought their bedroom behavior out into the public square and declared that there's nothing wrong with it, Christians and others can now pick it apart. You don't get to have it both ways. If people are going to make their private behavior a matter of public record, then they have to deal with the public's reaction.

This is a huge double standard. It is so common for heterosexuals to bring their "bedroom behavior out into the public square" that we don't even notice when they do. There are wedding rings, couples holding hands in public and kissing each other, weddings, engagement parties; the list just goes on and on. Yet we never criticize a couple for wanting to get married in the "public square", despite the fact it is little more than advertising what they do in the bedroom. And this is even ignoring the "checking out the opposite sex" that you can see in malls, clubs, and even schools. The facts are that heterosexual are far more public about their sexual behavior than homosexuals have ever tried to be; until heterosexuals take their sexuality and keep it in the bedroom they have no right to demand the same of homosexuals.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

If the sex life of homosexuals were indeed kept private, there would be nothing for Christians to pick apart. But since homosexuals have brought their bedroom behavior out into the public square and declared that there's nothing wrong with it, Christians and others can now pick it apart. You don't get to have it both ways. If people are going to make their private behavior a matter of public record, then they have to deal with the public's reaction.
​

​

Homosexuals have never been allowed to keep their sex life private.

This gay things goes back in history to even the "ancient" Greek civilization. Homosexuals have never desired to keep their sex lives "private." In Greek society, they receiver of gay sex (for males) was denied Greek citizenship. Something these people do irritates others. (No pun intended) The history of gay sex and its proponents have been smack in the middle of church history as well. Heresy history and history of heretics.

They have always been dragged into the public eye. In both of the Supreme Court cases, the issue began when the police, acting on information that proved to be false, broke into someone's house and found him in bed with another man, and arrested them for sodomy. They were keeping their sex life private until the government interfered.

Why, "was" sodomy illegal? Gay sex is repulsive obviuosly for a reason, other than picking on gays and lesbians.

The Stonewall riots, which are usually considered to be the beginning of the Gay Pride movement were a reaction against constant police raids on private clubs.

What a myth that has turned into. The police raided child prostitution rings many times at the Stonewall. BINGO, we have the history of pederasty and gay sex as the reason normal society won't tolerate homosexuality and its purveyors. That is the main issue even now. Notice that even in Ancient Greece, pederasts were "detested."

Before the riots, very seldom did evidence of orientation happen in "public" and even then mostly in the immediate neighborhoods where no one minded, except the "watchdogs of society" safe in their suburban neighborhoods, who sicced the police on them in the first place.

Watchdogs of society? They seem to be present throughout history where gay sex is popular. Even in Rome, gay sex was opposed many times in its history, the most famous incident being Nero's demise. "What an Artist dies in me," Nero was reported to have said as he offed himself rather then being offed by the Praetorium Guard. Kind of like Elton John being king.

Even today, the only way that most gays "bring their bedroom behavior out into the public square" is in little things like holding hands, kissing, hugging, etc. -- the exact same things heterosexual couples do in public.

During "Gay Pride" parades, there is a lot more that happens then just holding hands. Most people don't celebrate thier civil rights victories by engaging in sex acts in public.

Maybe we should outlaw any public displays of affection. Then maybe you can put the blinders back on.

That's been tried before. But people that desire sexual perversion always seem to rise to positions of authority in society to get debauchery back in vougue. Think MTV, ACLU and The Human Rights "Campaign."

There is a long history between the gay community and those that oppose its proliferation. In Christianity "it" is not ignored either.

Look up Bogimil(s) in Church History. It's where we get the term "bugger" from. You can google gnostics and homosexuality too. There is nothing new under the sun . . .

And even today, we see "Gays" as somehow "elites." Just ask them. Nothing new here either: http://pages.zoom.co.uk/thuban/html/homognosis.htm

The title alone of this paper will frighten away some readers but it must be made clear that one of the major elements of the Gnostic tradition is what we call in the twentieth century “homosexuality”. In the past it may have gone under many names and descriptions, but the love of ones own sex and the related rejection of the reproductive and family ethic was the core of the Gnostic ethical system. When the Bogomils were nicknamed the Buggers it was for an obvious reason, as were the homosexual claims made against the Knights Templar. It seems too easy today to ignore the more unsavoury elements (in the eyes of modern conservatives) of the Gnostic tradition and attempt to re-mould Gnosticism into some sort of mystical Christianity, “the Christianity to have when you are not a Christian” so to speak. The reality of the real Gnosis couldn’t be farther from this distortion.

This is an ancient and epic struggle between "gays" and Christians and others that do not approve of them and their "ways."