Taking God's Name in Vain

[MercyBurst]

MB: "Gay Christianity", on the otherhand, is an open invitation to turn away from God for another carnal gospel.

TL: That is a ridiculous unsupportable assertion.

MB: Let me show you an example of where this happend even on this forum.

This particular forum member struggles with his sexuality, and on more than one occassion a gay Christian told him he was sinning because he did not obey his gay nature that God gave him.

What more needs to be said?
​

TL: That's strong language but the type of thing the individual needed to hear; God made him gay so he should embrace it. For him to do so honors God and christ in the fullest.


MB: This individual is married and loves his wife and children. How can anyone advocate adultery and a break-up in his marriage? He made the decision, why not support his decision instead of putting temptation in front of him and telling him he's disobeying God. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. It's unacceptable.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MB: If you want to talk about my shortcomings then do it in another thread. This thread is about TAKING GOD'S NAME IN VAIN.

TL: By your reasoning that is exactly what you have done by the things you do here.

MB: How am I taking God's name in vain? I anticipated this response. Show me exactly where this has happened or kindly drop it.

TL: Your constant attacks on your LGBT brothers and sisters on CF dishonor God. You promote hatred and venom; your constant attention to this topic and expressing the harm you seek to inflict on your LGBT brothers and sisters is one thing; claiming you do it for religious purposes is blasphemy by your reasoning. This is your choice. You can however choose to seek forgiveness from those you have hurt and harmed in these endeavours.


MB:


OK Texas Lynn let's get a few things straight here.


First of all, I am capable of a mistake, and I am ready to apologize for them as I have done in the past. It takes character to apologize and I am up to the task. I am not here to make your life miserable, but to make people aware that there is a real place called hell, and there is a Savior that is fully capable of keeping us out of there if we are willing to do it HIS way instead of OUR way.


Second Point: I try to make my points without making it personal, however, I don't see the same civil demeanor from you and several others on this subforum. I can give a lot of examples. This post has enough of them already. For example, the word "you" is a hot word, especially when accusations are being made. I counted eleven incidences in just the last point alone. Eleven hot words by you, and I'm still maintaining my cool. I think that is rather commendable.


In addition to that you leveled five accusations against me some of which could be true, but stated much civilly than your choice of words. Let me list those accusations here:


a) You say I personally dishonor God, whereas I say gay Christianity dishonors God. See the difference?
b) You say I personally promote hatred and venom, whereas I could very easily say the same of you and provide abundant evidence but I have not. See the difference?
c) You say I do this for blasphemous reasons, whereas I obey the forum rules in regard to this particular inappropriate accusation. See the difference?
d) You say that I deliberately chose to do these things, and give me no allowance whatsoever to explain my line of reasoning. Here I am giving you a chance to explain your misunderstandings of me. See the difference?
e) Lastly you say I have hurt and harmed your gay brothers and sisters . If that is true then I am indeed sorry. I don't ever hear an apology from the gay side of the debate. No, not once, not ever, never. See the difference?

Now with all those things said I recommend you come up with your perceptions of my violations so that we might clear up any misunderstanding. Deal?

 

[Texas Lynn]

Originally Posted by MercyBurst

When the black clergy marched for civil rights, this did not cause christians to abandon their faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior.

TL: Actually I was speaking of white clergy; black clergy faced little opposition from their parishioners.
​

MB: Can you show where this turned christians away from their faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior for ALL of humanity, even as He said?
​

TL: Of course not; neither is the advancement of LGBTs. The "Christians" who opposed civil rights continued to do so regardless of what their clergy did.

MB: Faith in Christ is not related to civil rights, yet you continue to equate them. If you want to advance your gay cause as LBGT, then fine, go ahead and do so. The OP on the otherhand is about "Gay Christianity."

Righto. And LGBTs belong in the full participation of every Christian Church, getting married in them and seving in them as clergy. And will.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MB:

​

"Gay Christianity", on the otherhand, is an open invitation to turn away from God for another carnal gospel.
​

TL: That is a ridiculous unsupportable assertion.

MB: Let me show you an example of where this happend even on this forum.

This particular forum member struggles with his sexuality, and on more than one occassion a gay Christian told him he was sinning because he did not obey his gay nature that God gave him.

What more needs to be said?
​

TL: That's strong language but the type of thing the individual needed to hear; God made him gay so he should embrace it. For him to do so honors God and christ in the fullest.

MB: This individual is married and loves his wife and children. How can you advocate adultery in his marriage? This is unconscienable, and rather disgusting to say the least.

Remarriage is called adulterous by some; the fact an ancient partriarch could take more than one wife begs your question. Being true to oneself precludes staying in a bad marriage.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

MB:

​

Paul said tempting a brother or sister to participate in what they view as sin, is in itself a sin. Given what the apostle Paul said about tempting others, aren't you indeed committing a sin when you advocate "gay Christianity?" Isn't this "taking God's name in vain" when The Holy Spirit says "NO, don't do this thing to your weaker brother or sister!"
​

TL:
Not at all as there is no sin whatsoever in being LGBT.

MB: But on the otherhand, it is sin for you to justify "gay Christianity", when it offends the conscience of christian brothers and sisters, even as the apostle Paul said. I'm sorry, but this point can not be made anymore clear. It's sin by definition.
​

TL: Not at all; only to those confused as to sexuality and religion. There is no sin whatsoever in being LGBT and being sexually active as such.

MB: We are talking about "gay Christianity" here. Please stay on topic.

Ha. I answered your query right on topic. too bad you don't like it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MB:

​

The verse says specifically, do not offend your Christian brothers and sisters by what you EAT. I did not say that, rather the apostle Paul said that. How can you, a self-professed lesbian, advocate gay conduct to Christians? Paul said NO to this.
​

TL:
Paul did not address sexual orientation. How do you get to be self-professed?

MB:
If it causes another brother or sister to stumble, then don't advocate something they believe is wrong. This is the loving thing to do. This is what Paul said. Why aren't you getting this?
​

TL: For another to follow the positive example of a happy confirmed LGBT person is the opposite of causing them to stumble; it puts the cut in their strut and the glide in their stride; it climbs them into a custom Oldsmobile and takes them for a ride!

MB: irrelevant to the OP.

Translation: Aiee, I received a direct blow in the obfuscation gland!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MB:

​

If you want to talk about my shortcomings then do it in another thread. This thread is about TAKING GOD'S NAME IN VAIN.
​

TL: By your reasoning that is exactly what you have done by the things you do here.

MB: How am I taking God's name in vain? I anticipated this repsonse. Show me exactly where this has happened or kindly drop it.
​

TL:
Your constant attacks on your LGBT brothers and sisters on CF dishonor God. You promote hatred and venom; your constant attention to this topic and expressing the harm you seek to inflict on your LGBT brothers and sisters is one thing; claiming you do it for religious purposes is blasphemy by your reasoning. This is your choice. You can however choose to seek forgiveness from those you have hurt and harmed in these endeavours.

MB:
Either you come up with a direct example to support your accusations, or I demand an apology from you. Get with it girl.... I'm ready for either your apology or your evidence. I am fully capable of apologizing and I have done it before. So get with it. End of discussion.

Asked and answered. You accuse others of whatever in this thread and I've proved you do exactly what you accuse others of. Q.E.D.

 

[MercyBurst]

Asked and answered. You accuse others of whatever in this thread and I've proved you do exactly what you accuse others of. Q.E.D.

Would you so kindly answer my next post.

 

[MercyBurst]

Texas Lynn said:

Your constant attacks on your LGBT brothers and sisters on CF dishonor God. You promote hatred and venom; your constant attention to this topic and expressing the harm you seek to inflict on your LGBT brothers and sisters is one thing; claiming you do it for religious purposes is blasphemy by your reasoning. This is your choice. You can however choose to seek forgiveness from those you have hurt and harmed in these endeavours.

MB: OK Texas Lynn let's get a few things straight here.


First of all, I am capable of a mistake, and I am ready to apologize for them as I have done in the past. It takes character to apologize and I am up to the task. I am not here to make your life miserable, but to make people aware that there is a real place called hell, and there is a Savior that is fully capable of keeping us out of there if we are willing to do it HIS way instead of OUR way.


Second Point: I try to make my points without making it personal, however, I don't see the same civil demeanor from you and several others on this subforum. I can give a lot of examples. This post has enough of them already. For example, the word "you" is a hot word, especially when accusations are being made. I counted eleven incidences in just the last point alone. Eleven hot words by you, and I'm still maintaining my cool. I think that is rather commendable.


In addition to that you leveled five accusations against me some of which could be true, but stated much more civilly than your choice of words. Let me list those accusations here:


a) You say I personally dishonor God, whereas I say gay Christianity dishonors God. See the difference?
b) You say I personally promote hatred and venom, whereas I could very easily say the same of you and provide abundant evidence but I have not. See the difference?
c) You say I do this for blasphemous reasons, whereas I obey the forum rules in regard to this particular inappropriate accusation. See the difference?
d) You say that I deliberately chose to do these things, and give me no allowance whatsoever to explain my line of reasoning. Here I am giving you a chance to explain your misunderstandings of me. See the difference?
e) Lastly you say I have hurt and harmed your gay brothers and sisters . If that is true then I am indeed sorry. I don't ever hear an apology from the gay side of the debate. No, not once, not ever, never. See the difference?

Now with all those things said I recommend you come up with your perceptions of my violations so that we might clear up any misunderstanding. Deal?

 

[OllieFranz]

I'm sure you believe it is ok, but there are no biblical precedents for a gay marriage. It's just you joining hands with other gays and redefining morality as you redefine marriage. There are biblical precedents for stoning gays to death, however. Now we are under grace, and the penalty is not required, but that doesn't change morality.

There is no such thing as "straight marriage" and "gay marriage." There is marriage. Even if it is same-sex partners who covenant the marriage, it still the same marriage.

There is no redefinition of morality. sin is sin. Yes, Leviticus 20:13 includes a sentence of death on persons convicted of man-lying. But man-lying is a specific act under specific circumstances. It is not any "homosexual" act under any circumstances.

You are getting your interpretation of man-lying from some questionable sources. Sources which are not the Bible. The rabbinical schools founded by the Pharisees are the ones that defined "man-lying" as any homosexual act. They are also the ones that defined form of death sentence as stoning. I am surprised that you are willing to defer to them on their adding onerous burdens to God's commands.

They added to God's commands in order to "build a fence around" morally dangerous areas. God commanded that Jews not eat certain animals, or diseased animals of permitted species, or a kid steeped in its mother's milk. They turned those commands into the complex and confusing (to non-Jews) kosher dietary laws. They wanted to ensure that if someone broke the commandment of God, it was not by accident. Similarly, they re-defined "man-lying" to include all "homosexual" acts.

One of the reasons that I'm surprised that you defer to them is that you do not defer to them for anything else. You do not keep kosher, or observe their Sabbath rules, for example. Another reason is that you disagree with them even on the question of "man-lying." They said that this commandment did not apply to women. That whatever "rubbing" women may do together, they cannot have sex with one another because they do not have the required equipment.

So if neither of us agrees with their interpretation of Leviticus, it does not make any sense to appeal to them to settle our differences in interpretation.

I took the liberty of re-quoting the Romans 14 verses in context:

14 But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16 Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

Hence, advocating gay sex to those it offends is NOT LOVE, even as Paul said.

You claim to be re-inserting the context by including some of the verses I skipped over when I quoted from Romans 14, but then you pull the bolded verse out of context, ignoring the other verses in the same paragraph. Verses that you quoted for context.

Paul is saying that we are no longer acting in love when we encourage a weaker brother to sin. and that a weaker brother does sin if he believes a commandment still applies and ignores it anyway. This distress of his own conscience is the distress that Paul is talking about. It is not the "distress" of gossips and busybodies who are "scandalized" by your behavior. You are making exactly the same mistake that Peter made and for which Paul admonished him. It was not weaker Christians struggling to keep kosher that Peter "distressed," it was the Judeizers.

When a poster shows up here who is struggling with same-sex attraction because they believe that all homosexual contact is sinful, I am very careful not to say anything to them to distress them in the way that Paul describes. I have even gone so far as to direct them to the Recovery forums rather than have them stay here. On a couple of occasions I left this forum altogether as long as they continued to post here.

But simply proclaiming our freedom from a certain law is not placing a stumbling block. If it were, Paul could not have written Romans 14 at all.

So, if you tell me that you personally are struggling with the temptation of same-sex attraction, I will treat you as I have treated the other weaker brothers. Otherwise I will rightly and Biblically ignore your "distress."

BTW -- If you look over the post in which I quoted the other verses from Romans 14, you will see that even though I did not quote verses 14-18, I did mention the constraints that they impose on my freedom in the presence of weaker brothers. I did not skip them because they were inconvenient, but rather because the point I was making involved comparing the two passages I did quote.

Why do it if there is no need for it?

You would do better to ask someone who does it, rather than ask me. Just be certain that you are singling bout someone who is doing it. Otherwise you would be calling the Holy Spirit a liar.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Texas Lynn said:



MB: OK Texas Lynn let's get a few things straight here.


First of all, I am capable of a mistake, and I am ready to apologize for them as I have done in the past. It takes character to apologize and I am up to the task. I am not here to make your life miserable, but to make people aware that there is a real place called hell, and there is a Savior that is fully capable of keeping us out of there if we are willing to do it HIS way instead of OUR way.


Second Point: I try to make my points without making it personal, however, I don't see the same civil demeanor from you and several others on this subforum. I can give a lot of examples. This post has enough of them already. For example, the word "you" is a hot word, especially when accusations are being made. I counted eleven incidences in just the last point alone. Eleven hot words by you, and I'm still maintaining my cool. I think that is rather commendable.


In addition to that you leveled five accusations against me some of which could be true, but stated much more civilly than your choice of words. Let me list those accusations here:


a) You say I personally dishonor God, whereas I say gay Christianity dishonors God. See the difference?

Actually I say you do by your own reasoning. You just personally attacked more people.

b) You say I personally promote hatred and venom, whereas I could very easily say the same of you and provide abundant evidence but I have not. See the difference?

So you now support gay marriage, gay clergy, gay civil rights, gay parenting and gay adoption? No? If not then you personally promote hatred and venom. There's no two ways about that.

c) You say I do this for blasphemous reasons, whereas I obey the forum rules in regard to this particular inappropriate accusation. See the difference?

I said by your own reasoning you do.

d) You say that I deliberately chose to do these things, and give me no allowance whatsoever to explain my line of reasoning. Here I am giving you a chance to explain your misunderstandings of me. See the difference?

What kind of man obsesses over the queers to devote the energy to attacking them that you have? There is no misunderstanding about that.

e) Lastly you say I have hurt and harmed your gay brothers and sisters . If that is true then I am indeed sorry. I don't ever hear an apology from the gay side of the debate. No, not once, not ever, never. See the difference?

No queer has said you can't get married. No queer has tried to get you fired from your job or take your kids away from you. No queer has tried to steal jesus from you. That's the difference.

Now with all those things said I recommend you come up with your perceptions of my violations so that we might clear up any misunderstanding. Deal?

What's to clear up? Your obsession with LGBT issues reveals the inner you.

I will tell you this and I will tell anybody now and forever: if being LGBT sends people to hell I want to go right now! If supporting gay marriage and honoring gay families and celebrating to love of LGBt couples sends one there then it is the only honorable place to go. A hebbin of such an evil putrid god would be utterly worthless for people of integrity.

BTW I would refuse to go to such a hebbin if such as you were excluded as well.


A God of Love would not permit such a reality. That is why your stated motive to keep people out of hell is as despicable as could be. To be so is to be a servant of an evil god. In your proposed cosmology all the good people are in hellk and the nonly ones in hebbin are cowards and sychopants.

Take this thread for example: the original post is a perfect example of seeking to steal Jesus from one's brothers and sisters. Anyone who would want to go to a hebbin from which LGBTs are excluded has decided to sign on with unspeakable evil.

 

[MercyBurst]

There is no such thing as "straight marriage" and "gay marriage." There is marriage. Even if it is same-sex partners who covenant the marriage, it still the same marriage.

If you are going to change marriage from a man and a woman, what makes your new standard better than a polygamous relationship or an incestuous partnership between a brother and sister?

There is no redefinition of morality. sin is sin. Yes, Leviticus 20:13 includes a sentence of death on persons convicted of man-lying. But man-lying is a specific act under specific circumstances. It is not any "homosexual" act under any circumstances.

It's the only example I see in the Bible, and it took a death penalty along with adultery, kidnapping, and others. Prostitution did not take a death penalty by the way, but man-lying did. Why was it worse than prostitution I might ask?

You are getting your interpretation of man-lying from some questionable sources. Sources which are not the Bible. The rabbinical schools founded by the Pharisees are the ones that defined "man-lying" as any homosexual act. They are also the ones that defined form of death sentence as stoning. I am surprised that you are willing to defer to them on their adding onerous burdens to God's commands.

I can read a bible for myself, and the points are clear about same-sex sex. No reliable interpretation of the Bible agress with your view. There is nothing good to say about same-sex sex. Give me just one example where the Bible says this is acceptable conduct. I can show you several examples where it is condemned.

They added to God's commands in order to "build a fence around" morally dangerous areas. God commanded that Jews not eat certain animals, or diseased animals of permitted species, or a kid steeped in its mother's milk. They turned those commands into the complex and confusing (to non-Jews) kosher dietary laws. They wanted to ensure that if someone broke the commandment of God, it was not by accident.

no death penalty for dietary and dress violations, only a sin offering was required.

Similarly, they re-defined "man-lying" to include all "homosexual" acts.

Very different in that the offender didn't live to tell about it -- a death penalty was required of him.

One of the reasons that I'm surprised that you defer to them is that you do not defer to them for anything else. You do not keep kosher, or observe their Sabbath rules, for example.

The Lord's disciples changed our day of worship to honor the resurrection of our Savior on Sunday. I honor their decision and feel that it does indeed fulfil the completion of God's great work. I feel a Sunday "Sabbath" is appropriate because Christ rose from the dead on Sunday.

As for the kosher rules, the Savior told Peter we are cleansed from those rules. The food is needed to feed a growing world population.

You claim to be re-inserting the context by including some of the verses I skipped over when I quoted from Romans 14, but then you pull the bolded verse out of context, ignoring the other verses in the same paragraph. Verses that you quoted for context.

You can re-quote the whole thing. The main point is you don't cause another brother to offend his own conscience. This is the BIG BIG no-no.

Paul is saying that we are no longer acting in love when we encourage a weaker brother to sin. and that a weaker brother does sin if he believes a commandment still applies and ignores it anyway. This distress of his own conscience is the distress that Paul is talking about.

yes indeed

It is not the "distress" of gossips and busybodies who are "scandalized" by your behavior. You are making exactly the same mistake that Peter made and for which Paul admonished him. It was not weaker Christians struggling to keep kosher that Peter "distressed," it was the Judeizers.

No actually it had to do with meat offered to idols as explainded in II Corinthians. People who were once into idolatry, did not want to eat meat offered to idols because they chose to leave that pagan system and serve Christ instead. Food offered to idols tempted them to return to the idolatry, and that was why their conscience was offended.

When a poster shows up here who is struggling with same-sex attraction because they believe that all homosexual contact is sinful, I am very careful not to say anything to them to distress them in the way that Paul describes. I have even gone so far as to direct them to the Recovery forums rather than have them stay here. On a couple of occasions I left this forum altogether as long as they continued to post here.

that is the better choice.

But simply proclaiming our freedom from a certain law is not placing a stumbling block. If it were, Paul could not have written Romans 14 at all.

But proclaiming you can be both gay and Christian IS a stumbling block for a lot of people. Here we have a forum full of gay-advocates waiting in ambush to attack the beliefs of traditional Christianity. That pretty well says it all.

So, if you tell me that you personally are struggling with the temptation of same-sex attraction, I will treat you as I have treated the other weaker brothers. Otherwise I will rightly and Biblically ignore your "distress."

That is not my personal issue. However, I do have an issue with somebody taking the Lord's name in vain.

BTW -- If you look over the post in which I quoted the other verses from Romans 14, you will see that even though I did not quote verses 14-18, I did mention the constraints that they impose on my freedom in the presence of weaker brothers. I did not skip them because they were inconvenient, but rather because the point I was making involved comparing the two passages I did quote.

ok

You would do better to ask someone who does it, rather than ask me. Just be certain that you are singling bout someone who is doing it.

I think anyone does it that advocates gay Christianity. It just isn't compatible with the verses we just covered.

 

[Texas Lynn]

proclaiming you can be both gay and Christian IS a stumbling block for a lot of people. Here we have a forum full of gay-advocates waiting in ambush to attack the beliefs of traditional Christianity. That pretty well says it all.

"Traditional Christianity" was hardly ever concerned about sexual orientation until the rise of the religious right. The hatred they promote is the stumbling block.

There is no "stumbling block" whatsoever if affirming the LGBT Christians. Instead there is there a trampoline.

 

[MercyBurst]

"Traditional Christianity" was hardly ever concerned about sexual orientation until the rise of the religious right. The hatred they promote is the stumbling block.

Before you take on new ground, you need to face up to the accusations you've already made in this post:


http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47667786&postcount=65

You've already been asked twice. If you can not face up to your accusations as any decent person would do, then we should rightfully assume they are false, and expect an apology from you instead. You may indeed have some valid points. If so, defend them. Give examples. If you can not give examples then give an apology. Without one or the other I shall ignore anything else you have to say. I don't have to listen to you, you know.

 

[OllieFranz]

If you are going to change marriage from a man and a woman, what makes your new standard better than a polygamous relationship or an incestuous partnership between a brother and sister?

First, it is not a "change." Marriage is marriage. Second, even if we were to agree that a certain marriage were sinful (because of incest or polygamy for example) that does not invalidate them as marriages. The Bible accepts (in the sense of considering them real) both polygamous and incestuous marriages. A government may refuse to recognize the marriages, but they are real, nonetheless.

It's the only example I see in the Bible, and it took a death penalty along with adultery, kidnapping, and others. Prostitution did not take a death penalty by the way, but man-lying did. Why was it worse than prostitution I might ask?

Thanks for this question. It helps to make my point. The only bad examples in the Bible focusing on same-sex relationships are political rape (Sodom, Gibeah, and Hanun of Ammon), "man-lying" (Leviticus, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy), and the sin described in Romans 1:24-27. None of these condemn all "homosexual" activity.

Placing the limits on "man-lying" is difficult, which is why the Pharisees placed a wide fence around it by prohibiting all homosexual activity. But difficult is not impossible.

Although Leviticus 18:22 is only five words long, not one but two words that were used can be used to indicate force or coercion was involved. They don't demand it, but there are other words that could have been used that do not support the idea of force. So it could refer to rape. It may be telling the Israelites not to be like the Canaanites and the Sodomites, and the Benjaminites of Gibeah.

Also the act is described as "taboo," (toevah). It is not called zimmah, wicked or sexually immoral. It is mentioned along with child sacrifice to Molech and the beginning and end of both chapters 18 and 20 mention the toevah religious practices of the Egyptians and the Canaanites, and how the Isaelites are to avoid them.

So "man-lying" which carries a death penalty that mere sexual immorality does not, is either rape or a pagan religious practice, or both. In any case, it cannot be mere fornication, and it certainly is not sex within a covenanted marriage.

I can read a bible for myself, and the points are clear about same-sex sex. No reliable interpretation of the Bible agress with your view. There is nothing good to say about same-sex sex. Give me just one example where the Bible says this is acceptable conduct. I can show you several examples where it is condemned.

No, the Bible has absolutely nothing to say about same-sex sex. It includes same-sex examples when it condemns rape; it condemns man-lying for reasons other than just the sex, and when Paul considers the evil inherent in an addictive hedonistic lifestyle, he uses a well-known example from Plato that just happens to focus on same-sex orgies. But otherwise it is totally silent on same-sex sex.

As far as on the positive side, however, The bible does mention gay men and it glosses over their orientation. It does not see them as a problem, but merely as different. Bisexual men may also be represented. Whether they were or not, Saul clearly believed that Jonathan and David were lovers in a physical as well as an emotional and a spiritual sense.

The Lord's disciples changed our day of worship to honor the resurrection of our Savior on Sunday. I honor their decision and feel that it does indeed fulfil the completion of God's great work. I feel a Sunday "Sabbath" is appropriate because Christ rose from the dead on Sunday.

As for the kosher rules, the Savior told Peter we are cleansed from those rules. The food is needed to feed a growing world population.

You are missing my point entirely. When I said that you did not honor the Pharisees' Sabbath laws I was talking about things like not cooking on the Sabbath, not traveling, etc. It does not matter that we shifted the day of the week or why, we simply do not follow their rules.

And I do understand why we do not follow the dietary rules.

My point is: Why do you insist that the Pharisees' rules still apply to the fence around "man-lying" when they do not apply in any other area? Name one other area where we still obey the Pharisees' rules.

You can re-quote the whole thing. The main point is you don't cause another brother to offend his own conscience. This is the BIG BIG no-no.

That is certainly true. And as I have stated, I have gone out of my way to avoid doing so. But proclaiming our freedom in Christ in the face of the Pharisees' rules which no longer apply is not, in itself, a stumbling block.

No actually it had to do with meat offered to idols as explainded in II Corinthians. People who were once into idolatry, did not want to eat meat offered to idols because they chose to leave that pagan system and serve Christ instead. Food offered to idols tempted them to return to the idolatry, and that was why their conscience was offended.

Exactly right.

The stumbling block would be to eat "bad meat" in front of them, or to bring "bad meat" to a communal meal, or to invite them to dinner and serve "bad meat."

Does anyone here on these forums other than those on your side of the aisle, talk about gay sex lives (the equivalent of eating in front of them)? Does anyone post graphic pictures or descriptions of gay sex (the equivalent of bringing it to the communal table)? Can you honestly point out an instance where someone on this forum invited or encouraged a weaker brother to engage in sex that he beleved was wrong?

But proclaiming you can be both gay and Christian IS a stumbling block for a lot of people. Here we have a forum full of gay-advocates waiting in ambush to attack the beliefs of traditional Christianity. That pretty well says it all.

Exactly how is it a stumbling block? If it merely proclaims our freedom in Christ, and does not go out "recruiting" weaker brothers into sin.

I do not understand your position. (Actually I think I do understand it, and believe it to be just like the Pharisitical Judeizers' position, but I am willing to admit that there is a good chance that I am wrong, and am willing to listen to any evidence that will prove it.)

I think anyone does it that advocates gay Christianity. It just isn't compatible with the verses we just covered.

It is compatible, if the verses are understood in context.

 

[MercyBurst]

First, it is not a "change."

In other words marriage is whatever you want to call it.

Although Leviticus 18:22 is only five words long, not one but two words that were used can be used to indicate force or coercion was involved. They don't demand it, but there are other words that could have been used that do not support the idea of force. So it could refer to rape. It may be telling the Israelites not to be like the Canaanites and the Sodomites, and the Benjaminites of Gibeah.

Also the act is described as "taboo," (toevah). It is not called zimmah, wicked or sexually immoral. It is mentioned along with child sacrifice to Molech and the beginning and end of both chapters 18 and 20 mention the toevah religious practices of the Egyptians and the Canaanites, and how the Isaelites are to avoid them.

So "man-lying" which carries a death penalty that mere sexual immorality does not, is either rape or a pagan religious practice, or both. In any case, it cannot be mere fornication, and it certainly is not sex within a covenanted marriage.

The only problem is that all reputable bible translations disagree with your view, and both Jewish and Christian traditions disagree as well. In these traditions marriage has always been a man and a woman.

No, the Bible has absolutely nothing to say about same-sex sex.

My bible has plenty to say about it and it's all bad.

It includes same-sex examples when it condemns rape; it condemns man-lying for reasons other than just the sex, and when Paul considers the evil inherent in an addictive hedonistic lifestyle, he uses a well-known example from Plato that just happens to focus on same-sex orgies. But otherwise it is totally silent on same-sex sex.

So tell us about Jude. The strange flesh couldn't have been the angels because they did not visit Gomorrah and the neighboring cities that were destroyed along with Sodom:

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Those souls burn in hell even today as an eternal example. Eternal example of what might I ask?

How about it's an eternal example of what God thinks about gay sex. It certainly fits with the other Bible verses on this subject.

As far as on the positive side, however, The bible does mention gay men and it glosses over their orientation. It does not see them as a problem, but merely as different. Bisexual men may also be represented. Whether they were or not, Saul clearly believed that Jonathan and David were lovers in a physical as well as an emotional and a spiritual sense.

Yeah I've heard of it but there is no concrete evidence. We know David had issues in the morals department.

You are missing my point entirely. When I said that you did not honor the Pharisees' Sabbath laws I was talking about things like not cooking on the Sabbath, not traveling, etc. It does not matter that we shifted the day of the week or why, we simply do not follow their rules.

If it mattered to the Lord's disciples then we would be observing these things today the same as the Lord's supper. However, the new testament changed the ordinances. I ask when did God change His mind about same-sex as an abomination?

My point is: Why do you insist that the Pharisees' rules still apply to the fence around "man-lying" when they do not apply in any other area? Name one other area where we still obey the Pharisees' rules.

Well this argument always comes up whether it should be all or none. Given that Paul did away with much of the OT ordinances, but explained that gay-sex is not just sin, but a spiritual depravity, I think the answer is really clear.

The stumbling block would be to eat "bad meat" in front of them, or to bring "bad meat" to a communal meal, or to invite them to dinner and serve "bad meat."

Or advocating it with a name like "gay Christian" -- this is an offense to them.

Does anyone here on these forums other than those on your side of the aisle, talk about gay sex lives (the equivalent of eating in front of them)?

WE do not partake of it, so no, we do not eat of it.

Does anyone post graphic pictures or descriptions of gay sex (the equivalent of bringing it to the communal table)?

That's supposed to be off limits here. If it is allowed I say close this here forum.

Can you honestly point out an instance where someone on this forum invited or encouraged a weaker brother to engage in sex that he beleved was wrong?

Yes. Davedjy told this to DMagoh and DMagoh left. In addition you have others advocating this position regardless of whether a person is in a marriage or not. I think it's pretty disgusting.

Exactly how is it a stumbling block? If it merely proclaims our freedom in Christ, and does not go out "recruiting" weaker brothers into sin.

Because it announces that gay and Christian go together. They don't. Why not leave the name of Christ out of it if you want to practice same-sex? You are going to do what many of us beleive is sin, but why flaunt it as righteous when it is not? You don't see prostitutes saying "I'm a Christian hooker" or a serial killer saying "I'm a slayer for Christ." I'm sure they love doing these things, and probably think they are justified just as much as a gay person. But why drag the name of Christ through the mud?

 

[Texas Lynn]

Before you take on new ground, you need to face up to the accusations you've already made in this post:


http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47667786&postcount=65

You've already been asked twice. If you can not face up to your accusations as any decent person would do, then we should rightfully assume they are false, and expect an apology from you instead. You may indeed have some valid points. If so, defend them. Give examples. If you can not give examples then give an apology. Without one or the other I shall ignore anything else you have to say. I don't have to listen to you, you know.

Make yourself happy. What you see is what you get.

 

[Texas Lynn]

In other words marriage is whatever you want to call it.

Of course, just like every other institution.

I ask when did God change His mind about same-sex as an abomination?

God's opinion on the matter is entirely undocumented.

Because it announces that gay and Christian go together.

They do.

Why not leave the name of Christ out of it if you want to practice same-sex?

Because you cannot steal Jesus from those you hate.

You are going to do what many of us beleive is sin, but why flaunt it as righteous when it is not? You don't see prostitutes saying "I'm a Christian hooker" or a serial killer saying "I'm a slayer for Christ." I'm sure they love doing these things, and probably think they are justified just as much as a gay person. But why drag the name of Christ through the mud?

And this is why your disgusting arguments gain you no converts here. This is an example of the unconscienceable nature of your posts on these issues.

 

[KCKID]

And this is why your disgusting arguments gain you no converts here. This is an example of the unconscienceable nature of your posts on these issues.

MercyBurst's posts can clearly be seen as having NOTHING to do with Jesus but EVERYTHING to do with MB's OWN agenda. It's actually a mockery to God for MB to even think to use scriptures for this purpose.

I trust that visitors to the sub-forum have enough 'smart' to recognize this.

 

[OllieFranz]

You seem to delight in deliberately misunderstanding my point. Of course when you put your words in my mouth, it is easier to argue against the points you made in my name than it is to argue against my actual points. That is exactly why such straw-man tactics are a fallacy. (See the points in blue, below.)

In other words marriage is whatever you want to call it.

Marriage is what it is. Defining or re-defining it does not change it.

The only problem is that all reputable bible translations disagree with your view, and both Jewish and Christian traditions disagree as well. In these traditions marriage has always been a man and a woman.

Jewish tradition is informed by the rules and "fences" built up to protect people from accidentally sinning, as discussed in the previous post. The Christian tradition concerning homosexuality can be traced back to Clement of Alexandria who seems to have had a personal problem with all kinds of things that he associated with homosexuals. And Augustine who after finally repenting of his own hedonistic lifestyle came somehow to associate hedonism with gay sex.

My bible has plenty to say about it and it's all bad.

Perhaps, then you may enlighten me on where to find some of this "plenty." If there is so much "plenty" why do you keep retreating to the same passages over and over. Genesis 19 says nothing about gay sex(rape is not sex in general). Leviticus, nope (man-lying as rape or as religious practice is not gay sex in general)! 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy refer to man-lying, but not to gay sex in general. Romans, absolutely not!

So tell us about Jude. The strange flesh couldn't have been the angels because they did not visit Gomorrah and the neighboring cities that were destroyed along with Sodom:

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Those souls burn in hell even today as an eternal example. Eternal example of what might I ask?

How about it's an eternal example of what God thinks about gay sex. It certainly fits with the other Bible verses on this subject.

Honestly, I do not know what to make of Jude and 2 Peter. They clearly borrowed heavily from two popular books of the time. The authors of those books clearly believed the "angel theory," though perhaps not in the same form that has been argued so persuasively against. So either Peter and Jude believed in the "angel theory" (but why would the Holy Spirit allow such error into the Scripture), or they were using the example to point out something else.

Yes, the most obvious candidate would be the traditional "sin of Sodom." But scripture must be compared with Scripture. No other verse of the Bible suggests that homosexuality was the "sin of Sodom. Most give a list of Sodom's sins and homosexuality does not even rate a mention.

Ezekiel describes a selfishness and hedonism that is not necessarily rooted in sexuality, but in all appetites and temptations of mankind. That seems to agree with 2 Peter's parallel passage to Jude 1:7

And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds

The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
2 Peter 2:6-11
​

This passage from 2 Peter also sounds similar to the whole of Romans 1:18-32.

But why would Jude refer to a hedonism which includes but is not exclusive to sexual excess as "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh"? I don't know. I need to research this passage more.

I do note, in passing that "strange" is the Greek word "heteros" (the "other" of two similar things) and that "flesh" is "sarx" (a body, a corpse). The word is used in the Bible mostly to denote the carnal side of man, rather than the spiritual. (See for example Matthew 26:41, Luke 24:29, John 3:6). But then it would not be "the other flesh" chosen over the Spirit, but simply "the flesh." Perhaps it is in choosing to fornicate rather than to remain faithful to one's spouse. I don't know.

Yeah I've heard of it but there is no concrete evidence. We know David had issues in the morals department.

My point was that it does not matter if Jonathan and David were straight or bi. The Bible accepts and has no problem with orientation. Only with immorality. And you ignored that point entirely. The New Testament gives two examples of accepting orientation.

If it mattered to the Lord's disciples then we would be observing these things today the same as the Lord's supper. However, the new testament changed the ordinances. I ask when did God change His mind about same-sex as an abomination?

This was not a primary argument about Leviticus as it it can be in some cases, but a response to your specifically advocating following the Pharisees' extra rules when it came to man-lying. You do not follow their extra rules in any other area. Why do you advocate following them here?

As far as I know, God did not change His Mind about either man-lying or same-sex sex. It is not His fault you are confusing the two.

Well this argument always comes up whether it should be all or none. Given that Paul did away with much of the OT ordinances, but explained that gay-sex is not just sin, but a spiritual depravity, I think the answer is really clear.

OK, I challenge you: show me the verse(s) where Paul "explains" that "gay sex is not just sin, but a spiritual depravity." He certainly does not do that in Romans 1:24-27, or in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, or in 1 Timothy 1:8-10.

Or advocating it with a name like "gay Christian" -- this is an offense to them.

So are you accusing Paul of not being a Christian when he told us that the "bad meat" was really OK? Or when he admonished Peter who was trying not to "offend" the Judeizers. These are the parallels to what I do when I accept and defend gay Christians as Christians.

WE do not partake of it, so no, we do not eat of it.

I never claimed you did. I asked you to point out where a gay Christian came to this forum and spoke of what went on in his bedroom the night before. Or when a gay Christian ever initiated a graphic discussion of sex, gay or otherwise. I mentioned that whenever such a discussion occurs here, it is your side that initiates it.

That's supposed to be off limits here. If it is allowed I say close this here forum.

My point is that even if it were allowed, most gay Christians would not do it. It just is not right. But that is what the parallel to binging "bad meat" to a communal meal would be like.

But discussing God's love for and forgiveness of anyone who calls on Him, regardless of orientation, is not bringing bad meat. It is proclaiming the Good News.

Yes. Davedjy told this to DMagoh and DMagoh left. In addition you have others advocating this position regardless of whether a person is in a marriage or not. I think it's pretty disgusting.

I suspect that you are either exaggerating or misinterpreting what Davedjy said. I certainly don't remember him telling DMagoh, who is happily married to go out and fornicate.

The "worst" I recall him telling DMagoh was that instead of fighting against his nature, he should accept that he is as God made him. (And although I don't recall Davedjy saying so, I personally would have added that DMagoh should trust in the Holy Spirit to renew him and make him into the person God wants him to be.)

Because it announces that gay and Christian go together. They don't.

No, but neither are they mutually exclusive. Maybe the day will come when Christians don't care whether another Christian is gay, and orientation can join in the ranks of Galatians 3:28 along with the abolishment of the Jew/Gentile distinction, the slave/free distinction and the male/female distinction.

Why not leave the name of Christ out of it if you want to practice same-sex? You are going to do what many of us beleive is sin, but why flaunt it as righteous when it is not?

One could ask the same thing about the activities many on your side engage in in the name of "preserving traditional family values" from the threat of having to recognize gays. And make no mistake, there are those who perform the worst atrocities in the name of the Lord because of this issue.

I do not believe that everyone who believes gay sex to be a sin under any and all circumstances to fall into this category. In fact, I believe the majority do not.

I wonder, though, as someone who is concerned about people bringing dishonor to the Name, do you confront them as vigorously?

You don't see prostitutes saying "I'm a Christian hooker" or a serial killer saying "I'm a slayer for Christ." I'm sure they love doing these things, and probably think they are justified just as much as a gay person. But why drag the name of Christ through the mud?

But we have seen Jewish Christians, Black Christians, Women Christians fighting for their dignity and for the right to worship God and honor Him. As I said earlier these should be non-issues based on Galatians 3:28, but because there are those in the Church that do not believe the verse about loving one another as ourselves, they have taken two millennia to begin to be resolved.

 

[brightmorningstar]

There is a big problem here.
Texas Lynn wrote

Your constant attacks on your LGBT brothers and sisters on CF dishonor God. You promote hatred and venom; your constant attention to this topic and expressing the harm you seek to inflict on your LGBT brothers and sisters is one thing; claiming you do it for religious purposes is blasphemy by your reasoning. This is your choice. You can however choose to seek forgiveness from those you have hurt and harmed in these endeavours.”

Your constant attacks on your LGBT brothers and sisters on CF dishonor God.

Others do not see any attacks. Others do not see or treat Christian brothers and sisters as LGBT brother and sisters, they don’t recognise them as ‘LGBT’ or ‘gay Christians’ they only recognise them as Christian brothers and sisters, otherwise they take the Lord’s name in vain and dishonour God. What one group of posters believes honours God, the other group believes dishonours God.

You promote hatred and venom; your constant attention to this topic and expressing the harm you seek to inflict on your LGBT brothers and sisters is one thing; claiming you do it for religious purposes is blasphemy by your reasoning.

The love for God shown to Christian brothers and sisters is rejected by those who insist on being called ‘gay Christians’ or LGBT brothers and sisters and is seen as hate. One person’s hate is another person’s love.

If 'gay Christians' is talking the Lord's name in vain then we dont want to dishonour God, if it isn't, then we are pouring hate towards LGBT people. ? Is that about the right summary?

 

[MercyBurst]

You seem to delight in deliberately misunderstanding my point.

Let me just summarize here. You have taken the position of the Gay Christian Movement (GCM). I have already explained in detail why this is not Christianity in my blog, as it attacks the fundamental basis of Christianity which is salvation through Jesus Christ which produces repentence. Gay Christianity has been examined very closely by several of us, and in the final analysis Gay Christianity fails to contain Christian love.

I ask, have you been born again as Jesus required?

I do not care to rehash all the points which you have made which are standard for the GCM, in particular, those that dumb down the bible yet again. I've heard them before and I do not accept them. You can not find a Bible that supports your view. I have an entire web blog I prepared based on the inputs from this web-forum, and you have not made any new points:

Historical Christianity Can Not Be Reconciled with Gay Christianity

The artical is a reference feed to other web blogs and The Real Proposal Magazine.

Marriage is what it is. Defining or re-defining it does not change it.

yeah, like F=ma, redefining the attributes doesn't change it.

Jewish tradition is informed by the rules and "fences" built up to protect people from accidentally sinning, as discussed in the previous post.

Your argument boils down to a question of the authority of the scriptures. I believe the scriptures have authority, and apparantly you do not.

Honestly, I do not know what to make of Jude and 2 Peter.

They don't fit your rubric, do they? The Bible says Sodmom, Gommorrah, and the neighboring cities are a clear example for the whole world to look at, yet you don't know what to make of it. How about that? I know what to make of the Lord's practical example. Anybody that can read a Bible knows what to make of it, but your spin machine confuses you.

But why would Jude refer to a hedonism which includes but is not exclusive to sexual excess as "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh"? I don't know. I need to research this passage more.

Indeed, because it is conveniently left out of the GCM mantra.

My point was that it does not matter if Jonathan and David were straight or bi. The Bible accepts and has no problem with orientation. Only with immorality. And you ignored that point entirely. The New Testament gives two examples of accepting orientation.

The Bible defines the act as the sin and I never meant to say otherwise.

But discussing God's love for and forgiveness of anyone who calls on Him, regardless of orientation, is not bringing bad meat. It is proclaiming the Good News.

You have chosen to debate your own straw-man, not me. I bumped the rest of it.

I suspect that you are either exaggerating or misinterpreting what Davedjy said. I certainly don't remember him telling DMagoh, who is happily married to go out and fornicate.

Daveddjy said speciifically that DMAgoh, a married man with children and an ex-gay, should obey his same-sex desires though DMagoh had been through several years of therapy to keep his marriage together. DMagoh said he was personally offended by this onslaught.

The "worst" I recall him telling DMagoh was that instead of fighting against his nature, he should accept that he is as God made him. (And although I don't recall Davedjy saying so, I personally would have added that DMagoh should trust in the Holy Spirit to renew him and make him into the person God wants him to be.)

And God wants Him to stay married and to be with His family.

No, but neither are they mutually exclusive. Maybe the day will come when Christians don't care whether another Christian is gay, and orientation can join in the ranks of Galatians 3:28 along with the abolishment of the Jew/Gentile distinction, the slave/free distinction and the male/female distinction.

When it does, the church will fail, even as the church at Corinth.

 

[OllieFranz]

OK, now I understand. You are not paying any attention to what I am saying. Instead you are looking for similarities, no matter how remote, to things said by the CGM, a group of which I never have heard and you are simply repeating talking points you have worked up against them.

If you are arguing with someone else instead of discussing things with me, why should I continue to try to discuss them with you? Please do not respond unless you are going to take a discussion seriously.

Let me just summarize here. You have taken the position of the Gay Christian Movement (GCM). I have already explained in detail why this is not Christianity in my blog, as it attacks the fundamental basis of Christianity which is salvation through Jesus Christ which produces repentence. Gay Christianity has been examined very closely by several of us, and in the final analysis Gay Christianity fails to contain Christian love.

Since I never heard of this group, I have not "taken their position." But now I understand why you derailed my thread on CARM's website and then denied doing so. I will ignore any post in which you use the term "rubric" because when you do this you are not responding to me, but ranting about a group I do not know and am not affiliated with in any way.

I ask, have you been born again as Jesus required?

I described my conversion experience and early growth the first time you asked this question more than a year ago. If you continue to ask it, particularly after falsely accusing me of fronting for an organization you claim is devoid of Christian love, I will take it as an accusation that I am not a Christian and will report it as a personal attack.

I do not care to rehash all the points which you have made which are standard for the GCM, in particular, those that dumb down the bible yet again. I've heard them before and I do not accept them. You can not find a Bible that supports your view. I have an entire web blog I prepared based on the inputs from this web-forum, and you have not made any new points:

Historical Christianity Can Not Be Reconciled with Gay Christianity

The artical is a reference feed to other web blogs and The Real Proposal Magazine.

more than a third of the way through your response, and you have only ranted about this group that you dispise, but which has nothing to do with me, and another veiled attack on my Christianity. I guess that you have nothing else to offer.

yeah, like F=ma, redefining the attributes doesn't change it.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Marriage is what it is. The cultural baggage changes with the culture. The Bible nowhere defines what marriage is, or who can marry. (Not even in the much-quoted passage from Genesis via Matthew). What it does say about marriage is what married life should be like for believers. It always assumes that the marriage has alreadyn happened. And it accepts even sinful marriages as valid marriages (Polygamy, incest, etc.)

Your argument boils down to a question of the authority of the scriptures. I believe the scriptures have authority, and apparantly you do not.

Well that just shows that you are not reading my posts, but only skimming them for similarities to this CGM group.

They don't fit your rubric, do they? The Bible says Sodmom, Gommorrah, and the neighboring cities are a clear example for the whole world to look at, yet you don't know what to make of it. How about that? I know what to make of the Lord's practical example. Anybody that can read a Bible knows what to make of it, but your spin machine confuses you.

I am not "confused." I am ignorant. I have not studied this passage as well as other passages. I would have to read the two books that Jude and Peter used as their reference, which have not been able to get ahold of yet.

And, for what it's worth, you clearly missed the part where I said that the "angel theory" could not be right, despite the fact that the source books taught it, because the Holy Spirit would not allow that error to stand. If you had, you could not onestly accuse me of not accepting the authority of the Scriptures.

Indeed, because it is conveniently left out of the GCM mantra.

OK that's it! Give me some reference to this "GCM" so I can point out to you that I have not said the things that you are arguing about.

The Bible defines the act as the sin and I never meant to say otherwise.

The bible calls "man-lying" a sin. Not all gay sex is man-lying. In fact I would say that the vast majority of gay sex is not the sin of man-lying. Some specific incidents may be man-lying. Many instances are sin, but not the sin of man-lying, some are fornication or adultery, etc

If the man-lying commandment was meant to include all gay sex, why is the Bible specifically indifferent to orientation? Why is the Bible accepting with gay men (without saying something like it's OK to be gay, but only if you aren't a homosexual)? There are at least two passages in the Bible that accept gay men.

You have chosen to debate your own straw-man, not me. I bumped the rest of it.

I have attempted to bring your evasions back to the point I was making. On this issue, however I give up. You have won. You have successfully avoided having to deal with the phariseeism that has crept into your philosophy.

Daveddjy said speciifically that DMAgoh, a married man with children and an ex-gay, should obey his same-sex desires though DMagoh had been through several years of therapy to keep his marriage together. DMagoh said he was personally offended by this onslaught.

While I still feel that this is likely a misunderstanding or exaggeration of Davedjy's position, if he did actually say something to that effect, he was most definitely wrong to do so.

And God wants Him to stay married and to be with His family.

Well, of course. I would not think you would have to specify that on a Christian site.

 

[MercyBurst]

OK, now I understand. You are not paying any attention to what I am saying. Instead you are looking for similarities, no matter how remote, to things said by the CGM, a group of which I never have heard and you are simply repeating talking points you have worked up against them.

The purpose of the GCM is to get Christian churches to embrace gay-marriage. Isn't that your goal as well?

If you are arguing with someone else instead of discussing things with me, why should I continue to try to discuss them with you? Please do not respond unless you are going to take a discussion seriously.

Your revelations on the scriptures hold no water. I'm sorry but I don't buy it. I think you are reading from Boswell, or some other crack pot.

Since I never heard of this group, I have not "taken their position." But now I understand why you derailed my thread on CARM's website and then denied doing so. I will ignore any post in which you use the term "rubric" because when you do this you are not responding to me, but ranting about a group I do not know and am not affiliated with in any way.

It's not a group per se. The Gay Christian Movement is an attempt by individual homosexuals to legitimize gay-sex for the church members. Like it or not you fit in this discription. The church body has responded to it as a contagion under the name of Gay Christin Movement. It could just as well be called Gay Christian Infiltrators.

I described my conversion experience and early growth the first time you asked this question more than a year ago.

That was over a year ago. Why don't you be reasonable here. I only asked, were you born again? Why is that something to be ashamed of?

If you continue to ask it, particularly after falsely accusing me of fronting for an organization you claim is devoid of Christian love, I will take it as an accusation that I am not a Christian and will report it as a personal attack.

It is not meant as an accusation, I'm merely asking a question that I think is completely fair to ask: Are you born again? If you had good news you would share it with joy.

more than a third of the way through your response, and you have only ranted about this group that you dispise,

I dislike their invasion on church morality. The people are welcome to come to church like anyone esle. Is this what you mean by "dispising them," when I say I disapprove of their philosophy? I'm supposed to like it huh?

but which has nothing to do with me, and another veiled attack on my Christianity. I guess that you have nothing else to offer.

probably not. I don't buy your Bible rationalizations.

Well that just shows that you are not reading my posts, but only skimming them for similarities to this CGM group.

Your points and counterpoints are the same. You have no new information that other gay-advocates haven't presented already.

I am not "confused." I am ignorant. I have not studied this passage as well as other passages. I would have to read the two books that Jude and Peter used as their reference, which have not been able to get ahold of yet.

Jude and Peter used the Holy Spirit as their reference, not some other book. Even as the bible says, all scripture is divinely inspired for doctrinal reproof and instruction.

And, for what it's worth, you clearly missed the part where I said that the "angel theory" could not be right, despite the fact that the source books taught it, because the Holy Spirit would not allow that error to stand. If you had, you could not onestly accuse me of not accepting the authority of the Scriptures.

In your previous statement you said Peter and JUde were relying on "other books" rather than the Holy Spirit. What further proof is needed?

OK that's it! Give me some reference to this "GCM" so I can point out to you that I have not said the things that you are arguing about.

I provided the link already. All the gay advocates on this forum are part of the movement to legitimize gay marriage in the church. They call themselves "Gay Christians" get it "Gay Christians", let's make sure you get it one more time -- they call themselves "Gay Christians" and they have a MOVEMENT to legitimize gay marriage in the church. The church doesn't call them "Gay Christians", they call themselves "Gay Christians" and they have a movement to legitimize gay marriage in the church. Gay Christians + Movement = Gay Christian Movement. Do I need to say it again. I will if I need to explain it again. Sorry for all the repeats. I just want to make sure you understand it.

I have attempted to bring your evasions back to the point I was making. On this issue, however I give up. You have won. You have successfully avoided having to deal with the phariseeism that has crept into your philosophy.

You see it that way, but I see it as an attempt to overthrow the foundations of Historical Christianity, just so gays can continue being the same sans repentance. It appears gays want the church to change and God to change so they can continue to be the same.

Look at all the twisting and turning gays go through to justify themselves under the Bible. Why not just live gay and forget about the bible? If you don't believe the Bible about Hell, about gay sex, about translations, about this that and the other, then how can you believe it about heaven?

Why not just forget about the bible and live the way you want to? It kind of looks like you're doing that anyway.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Others do not see any attacks.

That is due to cognitive dissonance.

Others do not see or treat Christian brothers and sisters as LGBT brother and sisters, they don’t recognise them as ‘LGBT’ or ‘gay Christians’ they only recognise them as Christian brothers and sisters, otherwise they take the Lord’s name in vain and dishonour God. What one group of posters believes honours God, the other group believes dishonours God.
The love for God shown to Christian brothers and sisters is rejected by those who insist on being called ‘gay Christians’ or LGBT brothers and sisters and is seen as hate. One person’s hate is another person’s love.

If 'gay Christians' is talking the Lord's name in vain then we dont want to dishonour God, if it isn't, then we are pouring hate towards LGBT people. ? Is that about the right summary?

No. The above is word salad which does not make sense. Say, you post a lot like Phinheas2 even unto using Anglophone constructions like "honour" instead of "honor". I wonder why that is.