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

[Aerika]

Apostolic authority COMES from Christ from his apostles he elected.

Paul spoke from the same holy spirit Jesus gave to his apostles. All writings in the NT are equally inspired by God and one isn't more important than the other.

Christ offered his salvation prior to the existence of the New Testament. Salvation is exclusive of the Bible.

 

[PetersKeys]

Christ offered his salvation prior to the existence of the New Testament. Salvation is exclusive of the Bible.

Yes, but before the bible there was oral apostolic tradition. The early christians knew the importance of abstaining from immoral practices and sex outside of marriage. Remember in the Book of Acts when the problem of how christians should follow the law came up, and they had to have a counsel in Jerusalem to settle this problem? They came up with the answer of obstaining from meats from strangled animals and from immoral sexual practices. Also Jesus said he did not come to destroy the law, so we still need to keep the ten commandments.

And like I asked earlier. What does salvation entail? We are told to work it out with fear and trembling.

 

[Aerika]

Yes, but before the bible there was oral apostolic tradition. The early christians knew the importance of abstaining from immoral practices and sex outside of marriage. Remember in the Book of Acts when the problem of how christians should follow the law came up, and they had to have a counsel in Jerusalem to settle this problem? They came up with the answer of obstaining from meats from strangled animals and from immoral sexual practices. Also Jesus said he did not come to destroy the law, so we still need to keep the ten commandments.

And like I asked earlier. What does salvation entail? We are told to work it out with fear and trembling.

But Acts was written sometime after the death of Christ.

It is almost universally agreed that the author of Acts also wrote the Gospel of Luke, see also Luke-Acts. The traditional view is that both books were written c. 60, though most scholars, believing the Gospel to be dependent (at least) on Mark's gospel, view the book(s) as having been written at a later date, sometime between 70 and 100.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles

And Paul was saved about 14 years after the death of Christ. I think it reinforces the spirit of the law and it puts more emphasis on a personal relationship with God. Otherwise, Christ's sacrifice means very little at the time of his physical death.

 

[Archer93]

http://www.whosoever.org/v4i1/paul.html
I win.

Really not arguing. Quite right about the unambiguous words meaning male-male sex being available to Paul. So why did he feel the need to make one up? Juxtaposed with 'malakos', which I understand generally means something along the lines of 'soft', i.e. weak, it makes more sense if 'arsenekiotes' is translated as something closer to 'lazy'. As in, 'someone who lies around in bed'.

Just a thought. Not an expert in Greek, me.

 

[Maren]

Really not arguing. Quite right about the unambiguous words meaning male-male sex being available to Paul. So why did he feel the need to make one up? Juxtaposed with 'malakos', which I understand generally means something along the lines of 'soft', i.e. weak, it makes more sense if 'arsenekiotes' is translated as something closer to 'lazy'. As in, 'someone who lies around in bed'.

Just a thought. Not an expert in Greek, me.

Yes, the meaning of "malakos" in Koine Greek was "soft", you can find it also in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25. It also was used to imply effeminacy, as in a "soft" man. What it did not have is any connotation of homosexuality, the Greeks had a other terms for an effeminate homosexual. And I agree, with six other words that we clearly understand today that meant homosexual it seems strange that Paul would make up a new word that has the same meaning rather than use a word (of which there were about six) that everyone (both then and today) would fully understand.

 

[ReverendDG]

Stoning was a good reason to preach the truth. A prophet that was in error wasn't as lucky as modern-day gay theologians.

false prophets were stoned because the things they said didn't come true, no "gay theologian" is telling people things that didn't happen

It could feel pleasureable to screw a steak. Is that what the steak was designed for? Heroin is pleasureable as well. Many vices feel great. I'll categorize your personals pleasures where they fit.

i could careless what you do, arguing "its not natural!" is a red herring and tedious at best. as for heroin, it causes harm to the body, so no its not comparable to homosexuality

Eating twinkies (Hostess cakes) feels good. When you get in the sewer you have to expect what could be slung at you and try to avoid it.

what? that made no sense.

Are you going with the "He's a closeted self-loathing gay guy" anytime soon? As you can see, I have experience with gay debaters.

wow can you read minds? i don't choose to use that line of reasoning, unless you've gone so far down hill that it could be the only reason left.

i'd say you are obsessed with what others do in the bedroom and are so repressed that you think its the right way to be. i'd say you have a narrow view of what love is and anything outside of it can't be love to you only sin.

I am here to contend for the faith. The one that scriptures says "Was delivered only once to the saints." I couldn't care less what pagans act on until they do it in the Church, and blame Christians that want their perversions out, as bigots and haters.

as its been said 100's of times, contend with your own sin first, only god can change a person. the only things people like you do is show that you don't care about people, only about everything conforming to your world view
if you don't care what people do, then stop attacking people who disagree with you

Gay debate tactic number five is it? How many of the anti-Christian non-Christian crowd are supporters of gay goals? I just report what I see. It's a Christian thing to do.

i support equity, your delusional take of what gay people want is a straw-man. no one will turn gay if they know gay people exist, it won't ruin marriage in anyway, it won't make children gay or monsters.

Not too many Swedes bombing people every day. BUT, please gay debate tactic number one, is to spin away from the truth of the OP. Please focus.

you are the one who brought up conservatives, i'm just pointing out they aren't saints

I'm sorry, I left the "two wrongs make a right" thing back in kindergarten. I don't need the Bible for universal truth.

wheres your "universal" truth come from then? are you now god?
no one is sinless according to christianity, but no one is MORE sinful than another person either, attacking gay people doesn't give you any browny points to heaven

Look at what Ezekiel (a prophet) says were the sins of Sodom. Hubris absolutely defines gay comebacks.

wow good job, i'm glad you're able to pick out who ezekiel is. funny i could say the same thing about your hubris, even though you point a finger at someone theres always three more pointing right back at you.

Yet reality proves that I am not lying about the scriptures. Neologism is.

you consider your interpretation of the text right, hebrew and greek say different

Read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address and see why we finally agree on something. And note now, that it is the northerners (so to speak) that are twisting scripture and pushing gay unions over the Christian populace. But please, offer up another thread. Here, please stick to the OP.

your are the one broad-brushing a large group of people, i'm defending the group against your lies.
you brought up OT things, if you can't defend against it don't post it

The way Jesus literally goes out of His way to show what a "marriage" consists "of" (a man and a woman and that that is the way God made it) is one of the loudest statements in the New testament against same-gender "unions."

no its not, jesus was talking about divorce, he was using the current form of marriage under the law to make a point.
ie: "this is how you understand marriage" "this is how you understand divorce" "well this is how god wants divorce!"
trying to a 1st century understanding of marriage on to a 21st century world fails from the start

You pagans are allowed to reject that also. Read the text.

i'm not a pagan, i'm a deist

That would be where the GLBT community succeeds the most. Screaming at their detractors.

at least they have some substance to their arguments, all you seen to have is arguments from tradition, bad translations and the "icky" factor

 

[ReverendDG]

Really not arguing. Quite right about the unambiguous words meaning male-male sex being available to Paul. So why did he feel the need to make one up? Juxtaposed with 'malakos', which I understand generally means something along the lines of 'soft', i.e. weak, it makes more sense if 'arsenekiotes' is translated as something closer to 'lazy'. As in, 'someone who lies around in bed'.

Just a thought. Not an expert in Greek, me.

many scholars are now coming to the conclusion that arsenokoites is someone who have sex with male temple prostitutes.
the idea that you can insist that paul's meaning is the same as modern homosexuality is absurd.
but the anti-gay crowd doesn't get this, but then again they want to believe that their views are the same as paul's even though he lived it a totally time.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Well first they have no authority to claim what they think the bible says. They have no apostolic authority derived from the apostles and their succesors and thus their opinion is just a "clanging symbol".

If its not coming from an apostolic source then don't even bother because you will just get millions of different interperatations among millions.

"You can safely conclude you have created God in your own image when it turns out that He hates all the same people you do" - Anne Lamott

 

[BigBadWlf]

Which can be translated to they don't believe as I do so they must be wrong. Why is Apostolic Authority more important to you than Christs ?

Did not Christ give his life on the cross and offer his salvation ? And didn't he do it long before Paul started his ministries or the creation of the New Testament?



Do you have any reason to believe that believing in Paul or the New Testament excludes you from Christ's salvation?

Because there are many who dislike the message of grace, inclusion and the rejection of prejudice that Jesus taught. Therefore these people reject the teachings of Jesus in favor of their own.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Yes, the meaning of "malakos" in Koine Greek was "soft", you can find it also in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25. It also was used to imply effeminacy, as in a "soft" man. What it did not have is any connotation of homosexuality, the Greeks had a other terms for an effeminate homosexual. And I agree, with six other words that we clearly understand today that meant homosexual it seems strange that Paul would make up a new word that has the same meaning rather than use a word (of which there were about six) that everyone (both then and today) would fully understand.

A word that apparently everyone one at the time understood to mean something besides homosexual. Writers contemporary to Paul were using arsenokoites to refer to prostitution, the male to female kind

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Well, Rev, you're about as distasteful as they come. Lot must have dealt with similar people. Obviously Noah did. But let's talk ol' buddie.

false prophets were stoned because the things they said didn't come true, no "gay theologian" is telling people things that didn't happen

Gay theologians pervert and subvert the scriptures to their own sexual deviance. There are no gay sex promoting scriptures anywhere in the Torah, The Writings, The Prophets (those three together are called the Tanakh, what we Christians 'oddly' call the Old Testment) and to suggest that David and Jonathan were gay lovers, that Ruth and Naomi were Lesbians, and that Jesus was impressed with a sex-slave raping Roman pederast cements the feelings most people have about the indoctrination and licentious lasciviousness of the GLBT culture. Homo eroticism all the way.

i could careless what you do, arguing "its not natural!" is a red herring and tedious at best. as for heroin, it causes harm to the body, so no its not comparable to homosexuality.

The rectum is not a recepticle for the male sex organ. That is just a fact. The mouth, throat and stomach are not gentitalia. Your ignorance of facts do not let you off the hook for being dense.

wow can you read minds? i don't choose to use that line of reasoning, unless you've gone so far down hill that it could be the only reason left.

They petty little comebacks of the gay adversary are so typical, you know what's coming like a brick thrown skyward. Notice, that a brick thrown skyward reacts to natural law.

i'd say you are obsessed with what others do in the bedroom and are so repressed that you think its the right way to be.

Wow, you never hear that one from a gay debater. Well, maybe every single time you call them on THEIR perversions. But who's counting.

i'd say you are a bigot who has a narrow view of what love is and anything outside of it can't be love to you only sin.

I'd say you are just a typical example of an angry gay supporter. Let's see the typical charge of my obsession with others' sex acts when "I" don;t parade my sexual proclivities ANYWHERE, and what's next, OHH, the "your a bigot" charge. You're runing out of comebacks.

as its been said 100's of times, contend with your own sin first, only god can change a person.

I repented of not opposing gay theology. Now, according to the Bible, I can contend against gay theology. You do know the math for forgiveness and restoration don't you? Read Pslam 51. The gay speck has never really ever been in my eye. Many other kinds, but not that one. Though I did "run over" to my guy freinds' house a lot. Is that a metaphor that I may have been seeking gay sex? I'm thinking NOT.

the only things people like you do is show that you don't care about people,

To a mind like yours, with the tools it has to contemplate right and wrong, you will come to that conclusion.

only about everything conforming to your world view
if you don't care what people do, then stop attacking people who disagree with you

Like Paul did? How about James, or Peter, John or Jude? What about Jesus? Did He sit in a corner of his palestinian homeland and wait for people to come to Him?

I contend for the faith against attackers of it. Like gay theology. You know, "BOOO!!!' doesn't work. I'm not a closeted ghost either.

i support equity, your delusional take of what gay people want is a straw-man.

I have yet to see a strawman marching a in gay pride parade. Except the one dressed up like the Scarecrow or Dorothy. I can't remember. Does that count? It was more than likely Dorothy huh?

no one will turn gay if they know gay people exist, it won't ruin marriage in anyway, it won't make children gay or monsters.

You're delusions don;t alter reality. Gay sex in public schools has increased for a reason. I work with troubled teens and have for more than two-decades. I have never seen even once where a gay organization tries to talk anyone out of trying gay sex. Never. They give them "safe-sex" info. Condom morality.

you are the one who brought up conservatives, i'm just pointing out they aren't saints

What makes you think I am "a" conservative? I couldn't care less what pagans do. They can do as they wilteth. When you and your gay propmoting crowd come at the Church and say we must accept gay rule over us, pal, you are going to opposed. No tolerance, opposed. Ever read the New Testament?

wheres your "universal" truth come from then? are you now god?
no one is sinless according to christianity, but no one is MORE sinful than another person either, attacking gay people doesn't give you any browny points to heaven

Hey, your right. Do it again and you'll be up to the broken clock. I'm not "attacking gay people," I am defending against their attacks. Their gay agenda. There is no promoting gay sex in the Bible. All of the petty spin-tactics employed to get away from that fact only makes someone else look stupid. Not me. I'm just agreeing with the Apostles. I am making no other claim than that. Nice try with tactic number . . . six is it?

wow good job, i'm glad you're able to pick out who ezekiel is. funny i could say the same thing about your hubris, even though you point a finger at someone theres always three more pointing right back at you.

Your cliche comebacks are getting old. Ezekiel is no friend of gay theology. Especially as it always gets around to homoeroticism. How haughty and inhopitable that is. Ask a Christian.

you consider your interpretation of the text right, hebrew and greek say different

Then, you'll have no problem showing where the gay sex promoting scriptures are. Even in the Hebrew and Greek, marriage is a man and a woman. We do see gay sex, but it is always promoted by pagans. Even in the Hebrew.

PART TWO NEXT POST

 

[Polycarp_fan]

PART TWO THIS POST

your are the one broad-brushing a large group of people, i'm defending the group against your lies.

Really? Then please post the gay sex promoting scriptures?

you brought up OT things, if you can't defend against it don't post it

I think the Sodom wasn't destroyed for homosexuality reasons is not a bad position. I'm thinking that sexual perversion of the populace is a better way of looking at it. We can see how the GLBT community reacts to opposition, and we can see how sexual licentiousness destroys the family and society. Even Barack Obama - one of your own - sees the destruction of the family as a societal "problem."

You know, those "crying out to the Lord," from Sodom. Notice how inappropriate content addiction effects "the family?"

no its not, jesus was talking about divorce, he was using the current form of marriage under the law to make a point.

The current "form" of marriage at the time???????

I'll give you a break pal, and let yoy re-read the text there. Here's a hint: (God, and from the beginning, and let not man seprate it).

ie: "this is how you understand marriage" "this is how you understand divorce" "well this is how god wants divorce!"
trying to a 1st century understanding of marriage on to a 21st century world fails from the start

Hmmm, "Jesus is the same yesteday, today, and forever." (It's in the New Testament.)

i'm not a pagan, i'm a deist

Then why are you defending "gay" Christians? Or would it be gay "Christians."

Also, you have noticed, that all of the gay sex "in the Bible" is pagan?

at least they have some substance to their arguments, all you seen to have is arguments from tradition, bad translations and the "icky" factor

You build your strawmen from the chaff.

Biblical truth is not "tradition." You can't alter the scriptures just because yoy have some gay and lesbian pals you think are nice people. There are no gay sex promoting scriptures "in the Bible." If you (as a deist?) don't like that, create your own religion or write and alter the Bible as your fellow deist Tom Jefferson did. Or, just live your life as a deist, and leave we Christians to our lives as Christians.

Hey, why aren't you pointing your defense of gays and those gays (and LBT's) to those gay-affirming denominations? Why the need to force corruption on those of us Christians that do not desire an altered Gospel?

Ever thought of that?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Hey RevDG,

Are your quotes a good place to see tolerance and diversity of differing cultures?

Shield of Faiths law: "Without a Biblical reference attached, it is impossible to distinguish Christian fascism from Nazism."

Typical, oh so typical. You learned that from which of your marxist liberal/progressive college profs? Wait, hold on, I gotta check something. NOPE, no headache. Cognitive dissonance is a cliche now "too."

"When Martin Luther countered the authority of the infallible pope, he did so in the name of his new authority, the infallible Scriptures. This point of view was generally embraced by all of the Reformation churches. The Bible thus became the paper pope of Protestantism." -Bishop John Shelby Spong

SPONG?

And you want to be taken seriously?

Isn't it ironic Rev, that your little quotes insult "gay Christians" too. I at least don't think "gay Christians" are fools, or valueless. As you obviosuly do by your offerings of quotes that represent you.

You're precious. In a "Here's an example of our adversaries," kind of way. This is why Christians should not avoid contact with people like you. I have great respect for Deism. At least it isn't the stupidity of 0 x 0 equals the universe of the common darwinian chant.

 

[David Brider]

The rectum is not a recepticle for the male sex organ. That is just a fact.

No, that's a matter of personal preference.

And there's way, way more to homosexuality than anal sex. I'd kind of hope you realise that..?

David.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

No, that's a matter of personal preference.

And there's way, way more to homosexuality than anal sex. I'd kind of hope you realise that..?

David.

Talk about cherry picking. There's way more of my post that you ignored to force it out of view. Your tactics are cunning. I'll say that. I've also seen a gay pride parade so I know there is far more to homosexuality than just the lascivious licentiousness. That has to wait until after the parde. Usually, but not always.

BTW, What other two ways of gay sex did I leave out? Oh yes, "hands" are not sex organs either. I kinds hoped you knew that. I realize what "homosexuality" actually is. It is sex with a same-gendered partner. Or actually in keeping with facts, it is pseudo sex. But let's not quibble over reality shall we?

 

[David Brider]

Talk about cherry picking. There's way more of my post that you ignored...

I didn't ignore any of your post. That particular bit rather stood out as being staggeringly misinformed, so I chose to respond to it.

Your tactics are cunning. I'll say that.

I don't have tactics particularly.

BTW, What other two ways of gay sex did I leave out? Oh yes, "hands" are not sex organs either. I kinds hoped you knew that. I realize what "homosexuality" actually is. It is sex with a same-gendered partner.

No, homosexuality is the whole of same-gender attraction. Same-gender sex is just a part of it. Even male-male sex doesn't necessarily involve anal sex (as one contributor to these threads has pointed, there are male homosexuals who don't actually like the idea of anal sex). Female-female sex definitely doesn't involve anal sex.

David.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I didn't ignore any of your post. That particular bit rather stood out as being staggeringly misinformed, so I chose to respond to it.

Misinformed? I got straight A's on biology and physiology.

I don't have tactics particularly.

David.

No, homosexuality is the whole of same-gender attraction. Same-gender sex is just a part of it. Even male-male sex doesn't necessarily involve anal sex (as one contributor to these threads has pointed, there are male homosexuals who don't actually like the idea of anal sex).

David? My point is reality, not propaganda.

Female-female sex definitely doesn't involve anal sex.

Would you bet your life on that? But we do know that female-female sex definately entails genitals used for purpose they were not designed for.

 

[PetersKeys]

"You can safely conclude you have created God in your own image when it turns out that He hates all the same people you do" - Anne Lamott

I agree, which is why most people goto these modern denominations that suit their 'lifestyle" while ignoring pretty much the core of christianity in total.

 

[Followers4christ]

IMHO, Evil originates among those who are so arrogant to believe that they can speak for G-d.
I'm glad that you are secure in your beliefs. But when you try to say that my G-d (because She's mine, too, y'know) rejects me and my capacity to Love, you're spouting blasphemy.

The word of God (2 Timothy 3:16) tells us that homosexuality is a sin.By the way God the SON and God the FATHER are not women, so do not try to pass God as a woman when that is not the case..God Bless


Romans 1:24-27 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Genesis 19:4-13)

 

[ReverendDG]

Well, Rev, you're about as distasteful as they come. Lot must have dealt with similar people. Obviously Noah did. But let's talk ol' buddie.

nice, start with an ad hom, always a sign of good will and good debate. i have a feeling this will be about as deep as your argument gets

Gay theologians pervert and subvert the scriptures to their own sexual deviance. There are no gay sex promoting scriptures anywhere in the Torah, The Writings, The Prophets (those three together are called the Tanakh, what we Christians 'oddly' call the Old Testment) and to suggest that David and Jonathan were gay lovers, that Ruth and Naomi were Lesbians, and that Jesus was impressed with a sex-slave raping Roman pederast cements the feelings most people have about the indoctrination and licentious lasciviousness of the GLBT culture. Homo eroticism all the way.

well yes when you stack the deck against the whole idea of course you don't see anything you don't like.
this is just you blinding yourself to the possibles that people had same sex relationships in the bible, nothing more.
and yes i know what the tanakh is i don't know why you had to post that.

The rectum is not a recepticle for the male sex organ. That is just a fact. The mouth, throat and stomach are not gentitalia. Your ignorance of facts do not let you off the hook for being dense.

wow more ad hom's, the sign of weak arguments. as i said, tell the to the prostate, the male G-spot.
are people now drilling holes in peoples stomachs now? that just sounds painful!

They petty little comebacks of the gay adversary are so typical, you know what's coming like a brick thrown skyward. Notice, that a brick thrown skyward reacts to natural law.

well when you comeback with a real argument that isn't based on special pleading and nonsensical reasoning, maybe we can talk.
you haven't shown anything worthy of serious debate, if this debate really can be serious

Wow, you never hear that one from a gay debater. Well, maybe every single time you call them on THEIR perversions. But who's counting.

wow i don't care what they do, i don't care what you do either, you could have sex with a chair for all i care. now basing laws off a belief that has no support in reality or reason, now i do care about about that

I'd say you are just a typical example of an angry gay supporter. Let's see the typical charge of my obsession with others' sex acts when "I" don;t parade my sexual proclivities ANYWHERE, and what's next, OHH, the "your a bigot" charge. You're runing out of comebacks.

comebacks? i'd have more to say if you had a better argument than "teh gheys will ruin the world!!oneoneone111elieven"
i call you a bigot because you debase people who never did anything to you. you call them "sexual proclivities" and dismiss gays as just trying to show off.
i'd love to see a real argument from the anti-gay side that isn't special pleading, vague alarmist reactions, faulty statistics or outright lies

I repented of not opposing gay theology. Now, according to the Bible, I can contend against gay theology. You do know the math for forgiveness and restoration don't you? Read Pslam 51. The gay speck has never really ever been in my eye. Many other kinds, but not that one. Though I did "run over" to my guy freinds' house a lot. Is that a metaphor that I may have been seeking gay sex? I'm thinking NOT.

was that even lucid? its just a bunch of gibberish
the "gay speck"? what does that even mean?

nice rant.. i give it 4/10, too bad it failed at meaning anything

To a mind like yours, with the tools it has to contemplate right and wrong, you will come to that conclusion.

to a mind like mine? your rhetoric is slipping into the insane. i have fine ethics thank you, i know right and wrong, inequality is wrong.

Like Paul did? How about James, or Peter, John or Jude? What about Jesus? Did He sit in a corner of his palestinian homeland and wait for people to come to Him?

i honestly could care less about them, you said you don't care, which is a flat out lie. you do care a lot it seems.

I contend for the faith against attackers of it. Like gay theology. You know, "BOOO!!!' doesn't work. I'm not a closeted ghost either.

I have yet to see a strawman marching a in gay pride parade. Except the one dressed up like the Scarecrow or Dorothy. I can't remember. Does that count? It was more than likely Dorothy huh?

You're delusions don;t alter reality. Gay sex in public schools has increased for a reason. I work with troubled teens and have for more than two-decades. I have never seen even once where a gay organization tries to talk anyone out of trying gay sex. Never. They give them "safe-sex" info. Condom morality.

yeah i'm the one with delusions.. its hard not to laugh in your face after reading your over blown posts.
as for gay orgs, why in the world would they try to talk people out of doing something they don't think is wrong? do you realize how idiotic line of thinking is?

What makes you think I am "a" conservative? I couldn't care less what pagans do. They can do as they wilteth. When you and your gay propmoting crowd come at the Church and say we must accept gay rule over us, pal, you are going to opposed. No tolerance, opposed. Ever read the New Testament?

where did i say your were a conservative,YOU BROUGHT UP CONSERVATIVES, NOT ME, YOU!
yes i have, and jesus never talked about gay people and he taught love not hate.
i could careless about your church, you can be as intolerant as you want.
the second you start wanting to deny equality to people that want to be happy and live a peaceful life harming no one.
well then i will fight you tooth and nail.

Hey, your right. Do it again and you'll be up to the broken clock. I'm not "attacking gay people," I am defending against their attacks. Their gay agenda. There is no promoting gay sex in the Bible. All of the petty spin-tactics employed to get away from that fact only makes someone else look stupid. Not me. I'm just agreeing with the Apostles. I am making no other claim than that. Nice try with tactic number . . . six is it?

your hubris not withstanding, you are not defending anything but your interpretation of an old text.
the bible nether condemns nor promotes what we think of homosexuality now.
all things claiming homosexuality as wrong have one thing in common, the context.
all are about religious practice, all of them, deut, levi, romans, titus, etc.
they all have to do with the religion its not about modern day homosexuality, but about idolatry

Your cliche comebacks are getting old. Ezekiel is no friend of gay theology. Especially as it always gets around to homoeroticism. How haughty and inhopitable that is. Ask a Christian.

seriously what does that even mean?
do you realize that doesn't make sense? "Ezekiel is no friend of gay theology." so what? thats like saying solomon wasn't a fan of native americans rights!
every jewish source i've read says that ezekiel is right about S&G, only people who just don't want to understand say its about gay people.
seems to me YOU are the only one that thinks its about homoeroticism

Then, you'll have no problem showing where the gay sex promoting scriptures are. Even in the Hebrew and Greek, marriage is a man and a woman. We do see gay sex, but it is always promoted by pagans. Even in the Hebrew.

PART TWO NEXT POST

well done you show you don't want honest debate. even if i post something that would promote or not show that homosexuality is not wrong or even spoken of in the bible as we know it today, you will move the goal posts.
do you want to debate or demonize me?