Perverted homosexual arguments

UberLutheran · Mar 11, 2007

seekthetruth909 said:
I just don't understand why gays just don't start their own religion using aspects of Christianity Then you would not have so much dissention in the denominations that are tearing apart. Why should the older more conservative people see their churches wrecked because of this issue? It is a lack of respect to put them through this.
Gays could have just started a United Gay Christian church and people could have left other churches if they wished to join them. That is what other churches like the Jehovah Witnesses did. If gay people are comfortable in their lifestyle why do they need other Christians approval by pushing the issue within traditional churches?

Seek

Ever hear of the Reconciling in Christ movement?

Many of us are already doing that.

If gay people are good enough to tithe and keep your churches solvent, but we're not good enough to expect a visit from the pastor or church members if we're in the hospital, or good enough to have the church bury our partners when they die (and most gay people die of the same things everybody else dies of cancer, automobile accidents, heart attacks, stroke, etc.), or good enough to at least receive a commendation of our relationships well, then those churches aren't good enough to receive our tithes, either.

And that's exactly why I attend an RIC ELCA church. (By the way: average attendance has tripled since we decided to become an RIC ELCA church.)

If some of you folks don't want me in your churches that's fine; but don't expect me to lend a finger of financial support to your churches, either.

UberLutheran · Mar 11, 2007

MercyBurst said:
Yes, you are correct. The majority of us consider the "gay proponents" to be false prophets, "wolves in sheeps clothing", preaching a a soul-destroying carnal doctrine from sodom.

Some of us consider many in the conservative churches to be modern day Pharisees very much like the legalistic Sanhedrin who had Jesus killed in His day.

Some of these people seem to worship the Bible. That's OK if they want to do that, but the rest of us prefer to worship God.

BigChrisfilm · Mar 12, 2007

I think the most interesting point is that we can post scripture all day talking about why homosexuality is NOT ok, and they can't even post one verse about it being ok. Yet they claim their opinions are based on scripture, and our views are not. Makes no a bit of sense to me.

savedandhappy1 · Mar 12, 2007

davedjy said:
GAy pentecostal, presybterian, Quaker, UCC, Metropolitan Community Church...among a few...they add up to 28

Some of the same churches that have started preaching the replacement theory, that should tell you something.

Do you now believe that the Jews are no longer God's choosen people, and that they will not be grafted back in? Hopefully you have checked out the church doctrines beside the fact that they don't believe that homosexuality is a sin.

chris777 · Mar 12, 2007

kiwimac said:
God gave us minds to seek out the meanings of things, minds to extend our knowledge, to seek new things. We do God no service by refusing to use what God has given us for the use God gave it.

Do you not see any potential for abuse in your statement
Gen.3
[1] Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
[2] And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
[3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
[4] And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
[5] For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
[6] And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
[7] And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

kiwimac · Mar 12, 2007

The first chapters of Genesis are allegory not literal history.

Full_Moon · Mar 12, 2007

PinkTulip said:
Please explain how you know this. The Bible itself claims Scripture is inspired by God.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.2 Timothy 3:16-17

We are not saved by the Law, but the Law is written in our hearts.

15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obeywhether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? Romans 6:15-16

7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[b]

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.4 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." (Acts 15:19-21)

Yes he did, he gave the Law. Jesus said, the Father and I are one...If you deny Jesus, you deny the Father.

And Paul spoke against it through the Holy Spirit.

How did the word of the Lord come from your lips but by the word of the Lord which you recieved on your lips?

It is true norishment.

Full_Moon · Mar 12, 2007

davedjy said:
This does not prove anything. There are many legitimate Churches that are accepting of the "gay lifestyle". The Presbyterian Church (New light), I believe is one of them, the Metropolitan Community Church, UCC (not the one you quoted), Gay Pentecostal, etc. The ones you quoted, I have no idea...but we have quite a few accepting out here, I just attending one, but there are quite a few more in my area.

Yes, they are INDEPENDENT in doctrine, obviously! that just makes them "non-denominational", or of a different denomination.

You are quite correct in what you say Dave. Indeed I believe you have spoken the point plainly.

"This does not prove anything", just as saying that 28 denominations approve of sexual immorality, "does not prove anything".

It was not much of a pleasure, but the mock post I gave after the one you quoted could be used with your logic to justify racism, Nazism and antisemitism. The difference between me finding citations of churches endorsing racism, Nazism and antisemitism compared with churches endorsing homosexual activity is that it is illegal for churches to openly endorse the former. Yet churches and denominations endorse all these things alike.

I have never heard a reasonable argument for the biblical justification of sexual immorality. That is the nature of this thread.

davedjy · Mar 12, 2007

savedandhappy1 said:
Some of the same churches that have started preaching the replacement theory, that should tell you something.

Do you now believe that the Jews are no longer God's choosen people, and that they will not be grafted back in? Hopefully you have checked out the church doctrines beside the fact that they don't believe that homosexuality is a sin.

I don't know about replacement theories, but the Church I attend is absolutely no different than any other I am used to, except it is all inclusive. We don't consider homosexual, monogamous, life long behavior to be sinful...the service was a little more charismatic than I'm used to, but I really liked that.

Full_Moon · Mar 12, 2007

UberLutheran said:
Some of us consider many in the conservative churches to be modern day Pharisees — very much like the legalistic Sanhedrin who had Jesus killed in His day.

Some of these people seem to worship the Bible. That's OK if they want to do that, but the rest of us prefer to worship God.

Can you account for God as apart from what the Holy Scriptures teach?

I say this because the foundational element in all Lutheran churches I have ever known has been the "Lutheran" principle of 'Sola-Scripture (coined in term by Martin Luther himself). That is to say that the Holy Scriptures are taken to be the only authority in all doctrine and life of the church. I find this written in the first or second line of every Lutheran church I've known (eg, Missouri/ LCC, ELCIC, ELCA). It is a defining characteristic of the Protestant Reformation!!

Not to say that the bible defines God, but that God defines the bible as being a true account of Jesus Christ, ie: the written word of God. Scripture teaches to worship God and God alone, not letters.

So if you claim a god other than God, who the bible speaks of, who or what is your god? Can you account for God as apart from the Scriptures account?

-Sincerely

davedjy · Mar 12, 2007

Full_Moon said:
You are quite correct in what you say Dave. Indeed I believe you have spoken the point plainly.

"This does not prove anything", just as saying that 28 denominations approve of sexual immorality, "does not prove anything".

It was not much of a pleasure, but the mock post I gave after the one you quoted could be used with your logic to justify racism, Nazism and antisemitism. The difference between me finding citations of churches endorsing racism, Nazism and antisemitism compared with churches endorsing homosexual activity is that it is illegal for churches to openly endorse the former. Yet churches and denominations endorse all these things alike.

I have never heard a reasonable argument for the biblical justification of sexual immorality. That is the nature of this thread.

You call it sexual immorality, I call it discriminatory, even though non-intentional offensive discrimination, since you believe it is what "God thinks". Historical context alone blows the whole "sexual immorality" stance out the window.

Full_Moon · Mar 12, 2007

kiwimac said:
The first chapters of Genesis are allegory not literal history.

The wife says you are an Anglican priest. Some day, after seminary, I will be an ordained Anglican priest (God willing). Just as my priest is an Anglican priest. For this reason I care all that much more for the light within you.

I do hope you plan on making a point with your indirect suggestions. Why not come out and say what your words imply?

Dare you to not, by any means, try to justify sin which God has condemned. But if you will, then do so in full light and speak plainly.

I have not seen one reasonable argument to biblically justify homosexual acts, only 666 suggestions. Also the fruits of houses divided against themselves.

davedjy · Mar 12, 2007

I have not seen one reasonable argument to biblically justify homosexual acts, only 666 suggestions

666 suggestions? a satanic number of suggestions? ROFL!!!!!

Here is a good start, not suggestions, just logical interpretations:

http://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php

http://www.opendoorcenter.com/myths_&_facts.htm

http://www.shepherdinitiative.org/memWrite2.php

Full_Moon · Mar 12, 2007

davedjy said:
You call it sexual immorality, I call it discriminatory, even though non-intentional offensive discrimination, since you believe it is what "God thinks". Historical context alone blows the whole "sexual immorality" stance out the window.

You never run out of things to say. As each thing you say becomes indefencible, the next is spoken. Yet I'm sure the depths of your excuses for sexual immorality are deep. Be an example of the topic of the thread only if you must.

Historical context alone blows the whole "sexual immorality" stance out the window

A reason requires a reason. So why not make an argument and say why. Say it plainly, tell me how historical context alone blows the whole sexual morality stance out the window.

Before you seemed to suggest that 28 denominations endorsing something made it endorsed by God (or however many you actually know of which endorse homosexual activity).

To quote Luther, (for our UberLutheran)

"Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen"

JamieGraham · Mar 12, 2007

"If gay people are comfortable in their lifestyle why do they need other Christians approval by pushing the issue within traditional churches".

If you are concerned about your fellow brother/sisters whom in your beliefs are sinners-

Why would you-as a Christian-not welcome them to the teachings of God?

It is not your place-or anyone elses- to judge or punish another-it is God's.

Perfect yourself through the teachings of God - be compassionate to others in their learning experience and spiritual journey. You focus on how "you" serve God.

Full_Moon · Mar 12, 2007

davedjy said:
666 suggestions? a satanic number of suggestions? ROFL!!!!! Here is a good start, not suggestions, just logical interpretations:

http://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php

http://www.opendoorcenter.com/myths_&_facts.htm

http://www.shepherdinitiative.org/memWrite2.php

I can read propaganda all day if I wish. But I am not here to spend my life filling my eyes with nonsense. Make one good argument, finish the one you suggested about historical context. Do not think Excluding the bible in your argument will allow you a reasonable argument, for the word of God divides true from false regardless. Yet because this offer is not to dwell in muck all day, I offer you two chances to make one valid argument. These I will entertain.

Full_Moon · Mar 12, 2007

JamieGraham said:
"If gay people are comfortable in their lifestyle why do they need other Christian’s approval by pushing the issue within traditional churches".

If you are concerned about your fellow brother/sisters whom in your beliefs are sinners-

Why would you-as a Christian-not welcome them to the teachings of God?

It is not your place-or anyone elses- to judge or punish another-it is God's.

Perfect yourself through the teachings of God - be compassionate to others in their learning experience and spiritual journey. You focus on how "you" serve God.

the proverb ought to be observed.

Prov 26

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest you also be like him.

5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest he be wise in his own eyes.

Jesus spent a lot of time rebuking folly. Just as you have expressed concern over the journey of others by your post, so you will hopefully admit it can be noble. Though I agree it can also be ignoble.

P.S. My brother was called by your name when he was young. But now he insists opon the masculine name, James Graham.

davedjy · Mar 12, 2007

Full_Moon said:
You never run out of things to say. As each thing you say becomes indefencible, the next is spoken. Yet I'm sure the depths of your excuses for sexual immorality are deep. Be an example of the topic of the thread only if you must.

A reason requires a reason. So why not make an argument and say why. Say it plainly, tell me how historical context alone blows the whole sexual morality stance out the window.

Before you seemed to suggest that 28 denominations endorsing something made it endorsed by God (or however many you actually know of which endorse homosexual activity).

To quote Luther, (for our UberLutheran)

"Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen"

Polygamy condoned in Exodus, slavery condoned throughout the WHOLE Bible, stoning to death of a rape victim, marrying of a rape victim for life (She has to marry her attacker), the Leviticus argument falls into a purity code violation (we no longer follow those laws), 1 Cor 6:9-10 is a poor translation of an unknown word, that is inconsistent in translation (sexual pervert in 1 Timothy 1:10), Romans 1 is in conjunction w/pagan worship, orgies, promiscuity, backed with historical factual data of the time.
NO examples of loving, monogamous same sex relationships. Care to refute this argument?

YOU choosing to spend your time pointing to some "sin defense argument", when God sees all sin as sin, is what is mindless drivel. Everytime you sin, God sees it no different than any other sin, yet your Church doctrine teaches you that gay people must leave leadership, while glutton pastors can stay and commit their glutton acts and are "freely forgiven before God". Sad....

Full_Moon · Mar 12, 2007

davedjy said:
Polygamy condoned in Exodus, slavery condoned throughout the WHOLE Bible, stoning to death of a rape victim, marrying of a rape victim for life (She has to marry her attacker), the Leviticus argument falls into a purity code violation (we no longer follow those laws), 1 Cor 6:9-10 is a poor translation of an unknown word, that is inconsistent in translation (sexual pervert in 1 Timothy 1:10), Romans 1 is in conjunction w/pagan worship, orgies, promiscuity, backed with historical factual data of the time.
NO examples of living, monogamous same sex relationships. Care to refute this argument?

YOU choosing to spend your time pointing to some "sin defense argument", when God sees all sin as sin, is what is mindless drivel. Everytime you sin, God sees it no different than any other sin, yet your Church doctrine teaches you that gay people must leave leadership, while glutton pastors can stay and commit their glutton acts and are "freely forgiven before God". Sad....

I'll be back tomorrow. Please clarify this argument though. Unless I am too tired, all I see is you referencing scripture and then mentioning that there is no examples of living etc, etc....

Give reason!!! You have to give reason to argue that what you said justifies homosexual acts!! Saying that in scripture God commands whiping out entire cities wouldn't justify sexual immorality either.

If you would like to say you don't acknowledge the authority of scripture then say so. If you say so then don't argue from scripture anymore because you don't acknowledge it's authority. Whatever your argument is, make it with reason!!!

Thanks.

Dannager · Mar 12, 2007

Full_Moon said:
No offense fellow, but I believe you've summed up the pro-gay arguments. They are based on human knowledge and human wisdom. Interpreting the bible with human eyes by what we know.

But you do that anyway. Unless you have somehow developed the ability to read books with your eyes closed. And without the use of language. But since you can do neither of these things, you are forced to acknowledge that despite how much it may injure your position, you interpret the Bible every time you pick it up.

Perverted homosexual arguments

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Active Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Back in Town

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency