No 'Ifs or Buts' ...You Don't Believe As I Do So Therefore You Are Wrong ...!

[KCKID]

Well, the title says it all. Have I got it right?

We have on this subforum opposing opinions about the subject of homosexuality ...both from a logical/reasoning perspective as well as from a scriptural perspective. Because there is no agreement or even compromise on the issue it becomes a matter of 'unless you believe as "I" do, then you are most assuredly wrong!'

Appealing to the scriptures offers little benefit since, again, the scriptures that are most often cited are those that are either glaringly cultural/intended for specific people/ambiguous/unclear or/and could have more than one meaning/interpretation. In cases where the 'pro-gays' (or the anti 'anti-gays') reject a scripture that others claim state quite clearly condemn homosexuality, the 'anti-gays' then accuse the former group of twisting or intentionally misrepresenting the scriptures to support their 'sinful agenda'. And, of course, vice verse.

If we were able to give the Bible a polygraph test of sorts and the results were made public, who would be right, you or me ...or neither of us simply because our argument pertaining to one's sexuality is not actually based on the REAL 'word of God'?

 

[Texas Lynn]

KCKID, would you clarify your question? Of course we cannot give a polygraph to a book. I'm not sure where you're going here.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Debat tactics are fascinating to watch implemented.

Well, the title says it all. Have I got it right?

We have on this subforum opposing opinions about the subject of homosexuality ...both from a logical/reasoning perspective as well as from a scriptural perspective. Because there is no agreement or even compromise on the issue it becomes a matter of 'unless you believe as "I" do, then you are most assuredly wrong!'

Appealing to the scriptures offers little benefit since, again, the scriptures that are most often cited are those that are either glaringly cultural/intended for specific people/ambiguous/unclear or/and could have more than one meaning/interpretation. In cases where the 'pro-gays' (or the anti 'anti-gays') reject a scripture that others claim state quite clearly condemn homosexuality, the 'anti-gays' then accuse the former group of twisting or intentionally misrepresenting the scriptures to support their 'sinful agenda'. And, of course, vice verse.

If we were able to give the Bible a polygraph test of sorts and the results were made public, who would be right, you or me ...or neither of us simply because our argument pertaining to one's sexuality is not actually based on the REAL 'word of God'?

There is right and there is wrong.

Jude:

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Paul:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

And . . . Jesus:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

You will recognize them by their fruits.

Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

And . . .

"Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?

So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

If, and and but, has little place in Biblical truth when trying to implement excuses or alterations..

Try using the same words on a police officer that clocked you driving twenty miles and hour over the speed limit.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

So, can we believe in our own ideals? This happens, good to note, but what's the point?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Well, the title says it all. Have I got it right?

hey KID, isn't it far past time for a seprate Gay religious organization?

That would settle this "debate" once and for all.

Do Mormons desire to label "anti-Mormons" Moroniaphobes? Do Jehovah's Witnesses protest Christian Colleges and Meg-Churches?

Time for the end-all new thread, and we can all go home to our lives in peace and tranquility.

How 'bout it?

We agree to disagree without all of the new secular legislation and gay activism caused schism?

Once Gay is a religion, than they have all the wish for.

Let's say we call a summit?

 

[Andreusz]

hey KID, isn't it far past time for a seprate Gay religious organization?

....

Once Gay is a religion, than they have all the wish for.

Let's say we call a summit?

There are already a few gay-friendly denominations: the Metropolitan Community Church, Unitarianism and some Anglicanism ... so, no more debate than?

 

[gwdboi]

hey KID, isn't it far past time for a seprate Gay religious organization?

That would settle this "debate" once and for all.

Do Mormons desire to label "anti-Mormons" Moroniaphobes? Do Jehovah's Witnesses protest Christian Colleges and Meg-Churches?

Time for the end-all new thread, and we can all go home to our lives in peace and tranquility.

How 'bout it?

We agree to disagree without all of the new secular legislation and gay activism caused schism?

Once Gay is a religion, than they have all the wish for.

Let's say we call a summit?

I just want to point out that the psychological mechanisms involved in sexual orientation are highly dissimilar from those involved in religion and therefore no sexual orientation could ever become a religion due to the very natures of each.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

There are already a few gay-friendly denominations: the Metropolitan Community Church, Unitarianism and some Anglicanism ... so, no more debate than?

Unitarianism, MCC and "some" Anglican orgs?

That would be just a comeback TO the debate about the inappropriateness of attempting to promote gay sex in the Church.

And looking at scripture (Which Unitarianism REJECTS, MCC, REJECTS and the Liberal Anglicans REJECT), it comes down to the fact that the Apostolic witness is not silent about gay sex at all, not silent about disapproving gay sex and the promoting of it, and not silent in teaching that false teaachers would be commonplace teaching things LIKE the acceptance of gay sex in the Church.

Unless of course, you can prove that the utter silence on any statements of approving of gay sex are anywhere in the text of the New Testament, being "gay friendly" is just a Christian doing what the Apostles have taught us to be towards the enemies of the Church.

Can you show the scriptures that the MCC, Unitarians, and "liberal" Anglicans use to promote gay activism as a Christian endeavor? It appears you desire to show an end all to a deabte, with no supporting evidence other than, "some people say," as your substance.

And if that IS the case, then why aren't gays and lesbians flocking to these religious orgs and leaving the denominations that stand firm on Biblical truth, alone? But what we are seeing is gay activists like Soulforce attacking good and decent people when, as you show, they have no cause for doing so.

And also, why would "gay Christians" yoke themselves with so many avowed non and anti-Christians in their gay activism "in the Church?"

"In the Church," meaning, the constellation of Churches and Christian orgainzations that oppose promoting gay sex and gay activism as a matter of fact from the Apostolic witness.

Question:

In your debate rebuttal Andreusz, does the Humanist Manifesto or the DSM IV or progressive politics hold authority over the New Testament witness of Christ Jesus and the Apostles?

 

[KCKID]

KCKID, would you clarify your question? Of course we cannot give a polygraph to a book. I'm not sure where you're going here.

Sorry. I guess what I'm getting at is ...does God HIMSELF disapprove of homosexuality? Do the scriptures that are repeatedly presented here ACTUALLY address homosexuality per se or something more grievous than merely two consenting adults 'making out'? We have people persistently telling us that every letter, every inflection, every word breathed in the Bible is representative of 'the mind of God'. Is it? I don't believe so. I don't see how it could be. But others do believe that. It would be nice if a polygraph test (silly, I know) could determine who is right and who is wrong. Until that happens this argument pertaining to homosexuality will never be resolved one way or the other.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I second that! At least "Homosexuanity" would be able to lay a solid foundation built on well established facts....
Plus the irony of them persecuting and discriminating against xians and muslims would be delicious!

They persecute Christians, but I notice nthat when Muslims say to gays that they want gay indoctriantion books removed from schools, those books get removed. Christians get sued for their religious stand. Interesting huh? I've never said that gay activists were dumb.

Of course, I suspect this hasn't happened yet because gays aren't the monsters certain people would like you to think...too bad I can't say the same for the religious sects that started the war on gays.

Prove that.

This is a debate and discussion. Prove your assertion. Flaming and baiting is not allowed.

 

[KCKID]

Flaming and baiting is not allowed.

That depends on who is doing the flaming and the baiting apparently.

 

[Andreusz]

Unitarianism, MCC and "some" Anglican orgs?

That would be just a comeback TO the debate about the inappropriateness of attempting to promote gay sex in the Church.

And looking at scripture (Which Unitarianism REJECTS, MCC, REJECTS and the Liberal Anglicans REJECT), it comes down to the fact that the Apostolic witness is not silent about gay sex at all, not silent about disapproving gay sex and the promoting of it, and not silent in teaching that false teaachers would be commonplace teaching things LIKE the acceptance of gay sex in the Church.

My point is that some people who call themselves Christians accept gays in their churches. Whether you agree with them or not is a matter between you and them.

And if that IS the case, then why aren't gays and lesbians flocking to these religious orgs and leaving the denominations that stand firm on Biblical truth, alone?

I don't know. I think they should be "flocking to these religious orgs" (if they want to be religious at all). If "the constellation of Churches and Christian orgainzations that oppose promoting gay sex and gay activism as a matter of fact from the Apostolic witness" don't want to accept gay congregants who don't see their sexual orientation as a sin, then such congregants should simply not join those churches. (I think this may be a matter we actually agree on!)

Question:

In your debate rebuttal Andreusz, does the Humanist Manifesto or the DSM IV or progressive politics hold authority over the New Testament witness of Christ Jesus and the Apostles?

In my personal life, yes, but as I hope I have made clear in the previous paragraph, I am not trying to impose my personal beliefs on voluntary organizations that don't want to accept them (unless such organizations are funded by MY taxes!)

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I second that! At least "Homosexuanity" would be able to lay a solid foundation built on well established facts....

"Well established" facts?

The word "homosexual" has only been with us for a bit over a century.

The Gospels and the letters of the New Testamnt for 1900-plus. Ever notice the history in the NT?

"Gay," has been around a long time, but not with meaning of same-gender sex acts attached to it. That is like fifty or sixty years old. Not exactly what a historian, a paleontolgist or an arhcheaologist would consider a solid foundation and well established fact in the context of comparing Christian reality to humanist endeavors.

But I like the Homosexua "anity." word. It's time has come. (No pun intended.) Something altogether different from the Biblical record and provably so. Yes, yes. Copyright that sir. Gat a website up quick. I applaud your witty use of neologism. It is a very common practice among your crowd.

Plus the irony of them persecuting and discriminating against xians and muslims would be delicious!

Nero was a bi-sexual that married a man. He engaged in homosexuality and is very well documented for persecuting Christians.

And "discrimination," that is know as looking for "questioning youth," in gay culture. Notice the label GLBT"Q."

Of course, I suspect this hasn't happened yet because gays aren't the monsters certain people would like you to think...too bad I can't say the same for the religious sects that started the war on gays.

Nero and Roman same-gender sex acts, existed before the word "Christian" was tagged onto the followers of Messiah yeshua, ("The Way,") in Antioch. A place by the way, that really exists.

History is fun.

Real history that is.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Originally Posted by Polycarp_fan

Flaming and baiting is not allowed.
​

That depends on who is doing the flaming and the baiting apparently.

It does appear that non's and anti's and leftist persuasion get a free ride.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

My point is that some people who call themselves Christians accept gays in their churches. Whether you agree with them or not is a matter between you and them.

I humbly call myself a Christian, and anyone is welcome in the Churches I frequent. I just don't accept the sexual behavior "labels." People are just people.

I don't know. I think they should be "flocking to these religious orgs" (if they want to be religious at all).

If gays and lesbians think they can homosexualize the Church, then indeed they need to find other accomadations. I do know the reason they seek entrance into the Church, but that is for another place on this website.

If "the constellation of Churches and Christian orgainzations that oppose promoting gay sex and gay activism as a matter of fact from the Apostolic witness" don't want to accept gay congregants who don't see their sexual orientation as a sin, then such congregants should simply not join those churches. (I think this may be a matter we actually agree on!)

Serioulsy, I do not see how you couldn't.

In my personal life, yes, but as I hope I have made clear in the previous paragraph, I am not trying to impose my personal beliefs on voluntary organizations that don't want to accept them (unless such organizations are funded by MY taxes!)

Then why do gays and lesbians get to spread the good news of gay culture, which includes gay sex with the tax money of Christians? How about a free exchange of ideas in our public education system? How about "tolerating" Christians opposing gay culture being spread in schools, by allowing us the same amount of time to speak to the youth? There are pink triangles and gay rainbow "safe place" signs in many public schools, while far more of a majority voice is outlawed a place of speaking in public schools.

"Questioning youth" should not hear only the gay side of sexuality. There is a religious and moral side to sex acts as well. I have never heard one gay voice try to tell a "questioning youth" not to engage in gay sex. And, I have worked with youth in public and private institutions for over two-decades. It is all about supporting "do as thou wilt." Condom morality and supporting licentiousness is a complete failure, and one of the deadliest ideoogies in history. Gays demand what they are unwilling (intolerant of) to allow anyone else to have.

 

[Zaac]

Well, the title says it all. Have I got it right?

We have on this subforum opposing opinions about the subject of homosexuality ...both from a logical/reasoning perspective as well as from a scriptural perspective. Because there is no agreement or even compromise on the issue it becomes a matter of 'unless you believe as "I" do, then you are most assuredly wrong!'

Appealing to the scriptures offers little benefit since, again, the scriptures that are most often cited are those that are either glaringly cultural/intended for specific people/ambiguous/unclear or/and could have more than one meaning/interpretation. In cases where the 'pro-gays' (or the anti 'anti-gays') reject a scripture that others claim state quite clearly condemn homosexuality, the 'anti-gays' then accuse the former group of twisting or intentionally misrepresenting the scriptures to support their 'sinful agenda'. And, of course, vice verse.

If we were able to give the Bible a polygraph test of sorts and the results were made public, who would be right, you or me ...or neither of us simply because our argument pertaining to one's sexuality is not actually based on the REAL 'word of God'?

KC, what we have is the same problem that satan had. He wanted to be God. We have a lot of folks who don't want God's Word to be absolute truth and the final say so. Thus they remake a god of their own by rewriting and interpretig Scripture to accommodate sin.

Since Genesis 2, men have been challenging the integrity of GOD's Word and it STILL has not changed.

There's nothing to debate. There's nothing to argue. GOD is right and the OPINIONS are irrelevant.

Fornication is fornication and all the twisting and reinterpreting of Scripture in the world is not gonna make that which is sin, less sin. As He did with Pharoah, God is allowing folks to harden their hearts to His truth.

If folks want to believe that fornication between folks of the same sex isn't sin, fine. There are heterosexuals who believe that their fornication isn't sinful either.

If folks want to believe that same-sex marriage solves the fornication issue, fine. There are heterosexuals who believe that as long as they are committed to one another, they aren't fornicated.

But as a Christian...as a man of God, I'm supposed to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I'm supposed to tell people what the absolute truth that is God's Word says.

I am one of those who would LOVE to see GOD step down from His throne and say that same-sex relationships have His blessing. It would possibly alleviate a lot of strife. But then again, it might place it somewhere else. But a GOD who knows all doesn't have to change His mind. He has spoken to this issue and ordained that a man be joined with a woman.

If we accept as truth, anything other than His Way, then you basically have to unravel everything that He says in His Word.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To KCKID,

No 'Ifs or Buts' ...You Don't Believe As I Do So Therefore You Are Wrong

This is not the issue for many of us, though it seems to be the issue for you and some others. The issue for us is whether you believe the word of God in the Bible? It is the word of God in the Bible that in our view is correct, not strictly our view.
In referring to the word of God we cite as our view you deny the Biblical testimony is the word of God.

If we were able to give the Bible a polygraph test of sorts and the results were made public, who would be right, you or me ...or neither of us simply because our argument pertaining to one's sexuality is not actually based on the REAL 'word of God'?

The word of God is living and active, and either spoken by God, the Son of God or inspired. The Bible is the testimony of God for Christians, what is the real word of God if not in the Bible KCKID?
This is the heart of the debate, not just about homosexuality but much about the Christian faith itself.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Um, no kidding! What do you expect? The gay community does what it has to do against the attacks the religious community has cast upon them. They act in self defense, and I think you anti-gay bigots deserve everything you get from them.

I notice no railing against Muslims:

Originally Posted by Polycarp_fan

They persecute Christians, but I notice nthat when Muslims say to gays that they want gay indoctriantion books removed from schools, those books get removed. Christians get sued for their religious stand. Interesting huh?​

​

Read a book.

I have.

You mean to tell me that you claim to be christian, yet you don't know of the monstrous acts your people have commited?

And we "Christians" condemn them they same way we do with those promoting gay sex in the Church. We use the Apostolic witness. There is no support for killing anyone for Christianity and there is no support for gay sex in the same Bible.

Flaming and baiting isn't allowed, but speaking the truth is. Deal with it, and stop crying.

I never cry about this. I have presented gay culture in absolute truth and with facts, and I got my thread removed and severaly unjustly treated becuase the perverted nature of the truth violated rules here about showing pron. All I did was show what gays did on Folsom street (San Francisco) in braod daylight. PM me and I'll send you the link. Or don't, I do not care.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

KC, what we have is the same problem that satan had. He wanted to be God.

I'm curious, Zaac. Do you take this from Scripture or from Milton?

We have a lot of folks who don't want God's Word to be absolute truth and the final say so. Thus they remake a god of their own by rewriting and interpretig Scripture to accommodate sin.

Personally, I have no desire to rewrite Scripture, but I do want to understand it in its original context. And while I recognize that the Bible is authoritative as the source and norm of doctrine, I will not elevate it to the status of absolute truth which belongs to God alone. Calling the Bible "absolute truth" is a form of idolatry. Beside which it involves the believer in an endless apologetic spiral explaining away internal contradictions and conflicts with reality.

 

[KCKID]

I never cry about this. I have presented gay culture in absolute truth and with facts, and I got my thread removed and severaly unjustly treated becuase the perverted nature of the truth violated rules here about showing pron. All I did was show what gays did on Folsom street (San Francisco) in braod daylight. PM me and I'll send you the link. Or don't, I do not care.

All you did was to present people - regardless of their sexual orientation - at their most depraved. And that's it, period! If depravity is what you want then there are many places you can go to find heterosexuals behaving in a similar manner. Do these people have a 'heterosexual agenda' to push? It's plain nonsense!

You have to resort to this kind of deception to convince others that YOU are right, Polycarp_fan. You claim to speak for God but in actuality you speak only for Polycarp_fan. Only God can speak for God. I'm sure you don't even come close.