• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Who would you prefer to warn you of impending danger.

Who would you want to warn you of a tornado: a gay or a straight meteorologist?

  • A gay meteorologist.

  • A straight meteorologist: gays have reprobate minds and are not capable of issuing warnings.

  • I don't care: JUST ISSUE THE WARNING!!!


Results are only viewable after voting.
D

DMagoh

Guest
Well I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not gay, just one of "those" Christians. :sorry:
tulc(Mrs.tulc will vouch for me, honest!) ;)

I know I said I wouldnt be back to this particular thread, but when I saw that tulc had recently posted to it, I had to come back to read his post (because I always find them interesting, thought provoking, and sometimes humorous.)

I did not mean to assume you were gay tulc, and I'm sure Mrs. tulc will vouch for you!

I also honestly dont mind "those" Christians either. Some people will never believe it, but "those" Christians are some of my best friends. I do take exception though when someone assumes I hate them just because I think the Bible says that homosexual sex is sin. That's what I read that it says. I dont hate someone just because they engage in pre-marital sex (boy I'd have to hate a lot of people!) even though I think the Bible says it's sin. I dont understand the logic "If I dont read the Bible THEIR way, I must hate them."

My brother, I will gladly always share my coffee with you! ;)
tulc(a fellow brother of the bean?) :)

Yes! Thanks for sharing!
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,804
69
✟279,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Of course, they're also liberal -- which I understand in fundy-think means they're either gay, or Satanists, or they eat their young.


MMMMM young, gay, Satanists....
images

tulc(more like Homer then he is comfortable with) :sorry:
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,145
EST
✟1,123,523.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[SIZE=-1]In a nutshell: I would like for you, and DMagoh, and MercyBurst, and Der Alter, and NewGuy101, etc. to cut the "we love the sinner and hate the sin" cowpies and come out say what you really THINK, which I believe is going to be be (though this may not apply to you, per se): We hate gays, and we believe God hates gays, and we hate the gay people on this board -- and they're doomed and damned and frankly, we're glad!. . .[/SIZE]

I would be glad to do that, as soon as you show me where I have ever said or implied, any of this? Tick tock!
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,145
EST
✟1,123,523.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[SIZE=-1] "Persecuting" poor, long-suffering fundamentalists (who condemn others without mercy, but are also the first to complain when others turn around and condemn them for doing the very same things fundies condemn others for doing*)?

(You know -- that Romans 2:1-4 thingie, of which I have yet to hear a fundamentalist ever say might apply to them. Just for grins, I've included it, below:

1 Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself.For you who judge practice the same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3 Do you think this, O man who judges those who practice such things, and do the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you despise the riches of his goodness, forbearance, and patience, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

I know, I know:
13. If your opponent quotes the Bible tell him you're not impressed: even the Devil can quote scripture.)
[/size]

Context, context, context! I am not a practicing homosexual, I do NOT practice and do the same thing.

I am not in the judging business. I interpret and exegete scripture and point out how others corrupt and pervert those scriptures.
For you who judge practice the same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3 Do you think this, O man who judges those who practice such things, and do the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?​
 
Upvote 0
D

DMagoh

Guest
I'm gay and a meteorologist. I have access to the National Weather Service's Doppler radars and direct access to the National Weather Service so they can issue warnings.

Who would you want to warn you: a gay or a straight meteorologist?

No tornado's here..but I'd have to get my warning from a gay meteorologist simply becauset our ABC/CBS/NBC and FOX weathermen are all gay. Two of them I know. LOL. Wonder if there is something behind that? hmmm....

Come to think of it, the meterologist on the most watched local news channel here (the NBC affiliate) is also gay. He is the first person I see when bad weather is predicted because they have the best storm coverage.

see what I'm saying....also, a friend of mine is a weather man in a Boston affiliate...he's also gay. I'm in the NYC area..so I know our weathermen are gay. Not only do I see them out..but common knowledge for years! Now even the weatherman on FOX is gay...and we all know how conservative that network is....


Sorry..but after I read the posts that I have quoted above, I had to post this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT4XO3Hjp7M&mode=related&search=
 
Upvote 0

Uphill Battle

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2005
18,279
1,221
48
✟23,416.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Well, as horrible as it was, it was kinda loaded, don't you think?
:idea: I dare say your perspective would be different if you were burning. but that would go both ways, wouldn't it!


Hypothetical... do you think it would be possible to get along with someone who DOES think homosexuality is a sin? Jus' wonderin'.

Ah, you Texicans don't count. ^_^




Another question.... do you believe someone who holds fundamentalist beliefs can be less than the horrible monsters you portray fundamentalists to be?
Hey Uber... I wouldn't mind a response, I'm truly curious.
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Context, context, context! I am not a practicing homosexual, I do NOT practice and do the same thing.

I am not in the judging business. I interpret and exegete scripture and point out how others corrupt and pervert those scriptures.
For you who judge practice the same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3 Do you think this, O man who judges those who practice such things, and do the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?​
Interesting, I find the ones who "pervert" the scriptures are the ones that have falsely translated out 1 Cor 6:9.

"One cannot be absolutely certain that the two key words in I Corinthians 6:9 are meant as references to male homosexual behavior." -- Victor Paul Furnish, a Professor of New Testament from Perkins School of Theology, Dallas.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/inspiritus/The%20Mystery.htm
 
Upvote 0

UnitedInChrist

Veteran
Mar 23, 2007
365
59
New Jersey
✟16,499.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Single
Hey Uber... I wouldn't mind a response, I'm truly curious.
You didn't ask for my response, but I feel the need to speak anyway...so please allow me to....

I don't believe fundamentalist as monsters only because I do believe they do not see how they come across to others. I am not an extreme person in anyway...and that includes faith. The fundamentalist faith sets up a lsit of requirements that need to be met in order to have a life with Christ. At the same time, they, as a whole, have zero tolerence of anyone that does not believe as they do. Most fundamentalists are literalists as well which excludes the majority of Christians. Most Christians, worldwide, are not literalists except with the core beliefs of christianity...the trinity, the virgin birth, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. Fundamentalists is a lifestyle more than a faith. They congregate near each other, they do everything christian..from music, to vacations, to wknd encounters, etc...Again, NOTHING wrong with that but it goes beyond faith and becomes obsession..hence the term "fundamentalist". By any defintion it's a term used to define a "militant orthadox". But islam after it, put christian after it, it's all the same..It's hardcore...it's extreme..it's not representative of the majority...and it's dangerous. Those sorta terms, embraced by fundamentalists themselves, can easily be confused with what thinks of when they hear the term "monster". There have been many a hateful thing that fundamentalists do. For starters would be those that protest funerals of strangers saying "God Kills [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]" or "AIDS is God's way of curing homosexuality" etc.. Perhaps you don't do that...BUT those that represent your extreme faith do. That's Christian like? I'd say it is more "monster" than "God like". I can go on and on and on...but will stop since I wasn't even asked to comment to begin with... I will say this though. We have two couples in our church that USED to be fundamentalists. They truly never thought there was anything wrong with their belief structure b/c they were surrounded by it in the community in Texas. They knew no other sort of way to practice their fatih. When they got transferred here to the northeast they came to our church b/c it was close to them. They totally were blown outta the water with it. Very uncomfortable..but guess what? they are now members. Why? B/c they couldn't believe how they pushed so many christians away when Christianity is ALL about welcoming/embracing/etc.. They don't agree with alot of stuff, BUT that is their reason for coming to our church. They want to learn, meet, and be around people that are different than them in order to learn. They are RARE when it comes to fundamentalists. I do believe those that are NOT fundies are much more willing to embrace them, than a fundie is to embrace someone outside of their comfort zone.
 
Upvote 0

Uphill Battle

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2005
18,279
1,221
48
✟23,416.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
You didn't ask for my response, but I feel the need to speak anyway...so please allow me to....
no worries. Open forum!

UIC said:
I don't believe fundamentalist as monsters only because I do believe they do not see how they come across to others. I am not an extreme person in anyway...and that includes faith. The fundamentalist faith sets up a lsit of requirements that need to be met in order to have a life with Christ. At the same time, they, as a whole, have zero tolerence of anyone that does not believe as they do.
If you'll pardon the pun, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of Fundamentalism. It IS supposed to be about this:
fun·da·men·tal·ism
1. a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

but it became a platform for hatred.

UIC said:
Most fundamentalists are literalists as well which excludes the majority of Christians.
Most Christians, worldwide, are not literalists except with the core beliefs of christianity...the trinity, the virgin birth, the crucifixion, and the resurrection.
you sure about that? And how do we decide then, what is literal, and what is not? Could not, using the argument that it does not all have to be literal, it be said that even Christ is metaphorical or allegorical, and not literal? The bible does include both allegory and metaphor, however, historically speaking, I believe it as literal.
UIC said:
Fundamentalists is a lifestyle more than a faith. They congregate near each other, they do everything christian..from music, to vacations, to wknd encounters, etc...Again, NOTHING wrong with that but it goes beyond faith and becomes obsession..hence the term "fundamentalist".
ah, yes... the "holy huddle. Disassociation completely from the world as a whole. I can't say that I agree with that. How can you reach the lost, if you are only with the saved? It makes little sense to me.

UIC said:
By any defintion it's a term used to define a "militant orthadox". But islam after it, put christian after it, it's all the same..It's hardcore...it's extreme..it's not representative of the majority...and it's dangerous. Those sorta terms, embraced by fundamentalists themselves, can easily be confused with what thinks of when they hear the term "monster". There have been many a hateful thing that fundamentalists do. For starters would be those that protest funerals of strangers saying "God Kills [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]" or "AIDS is God's way of curing homosexuality" etc.. Perhaps you don't do that...BUT those that represent your extreme faith do.
true. Which is why despite holding what could be called "Fundamentalist beliefs" I will not identify with Fundamentalism. It isn't fundamentalism, it's extremism.
UIC said:
That's Christian like? I'd say it is more "monster" than "God like". I can go on and on and on...but will stop since I wasn't even asked to comment to begin with... I will say this though. We have two couples in our church that USED to be fundamentalists. They truly never thought there was anything wrong with their belief structure b/c they were surrounded by it in the community in Texas. They knew no other sort of way to practice their fatih. When they got transferred here to the northeast they came to our church b/c it was close to them. They totally were blown outta the water with it. Very uncomfortable..but guess what? they are now members. Why? B/c they couldn't believe how they pushed so many christians away when Christianity is ALL about welcoming/embracing/etc.. They don't agree with alot of stuff, BUT that is their reason for coming to our church. They want to learn, meet, and be around people that are different than them in order to learn. They are RARE when it comes to fundamentalists. I do believe those that are NOT fundies are much more willing to embrace them, than a fundie is to embrace someone outside of their comfort zone.
fair enough.
 
Upvote 0

UnitedInChrist

Veteran
Mar 23, 2007
365
59
New Jersey
✟16,499.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Single
no worries. Open forum!

If you'll pardon the pun, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of Fundamentalism. It IS supposed to be about this:
fun·da·men·tal·ism
1. a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

but it became a platform for hatred.
That is correct. Fundamentalism is a relatively contemporary belief. Prior to the Enlightenment Era, when science began to prove many things in the Bible incorrect, there was no "literal" of the Bible. It was what it was. However, it was then that some people would not accept the science, and thus, became literalist...they did not want to rock their beliefs, so basically shut the facts out of their faith. Fundamentalist, by definition, is NOT a bad thing..it basically is what many people hold dear to them...they believe in core concepts, etc.. However, the reality of the situation is you are right...when it comes to FAITH, the term has been hijacked by extremists, and as such, has turned a great many people away from Christianity..including those that were Christians themselves. You know there is an issue here simply because if you call someone a "fundamentalist" and they're not...they will be offended, insulted, and be angered. ONLY if you are one, and called one, will you embrace it...and even those sometimes hesitate to tell you "they are one". Just ask yourself...if someone said "are you a "baptist" or a "catholic" or a "episcopal" etc...and you weren't, you'd say no biggie really. Ask if someone is a "fundamentalists"...and their not, your response will be less than friendly I'm sure. Also, if someone said to you "i'm a fundamentalist"...what do you think? For me..."hey, nice to meet you" and then exit.

you sure about that? And how do we decide then, what is literal, and what is not? Could not, using the argument that it does not all have to be literal, it be said that even Christ is metaphorical or allegorical, and not literal?
Great point. Yes..I believe in the core beliefs of Christianity as literal. It is the foundation of the faith. God is VERY metaphoric as the writings show you. THAT is the reason the book is still being sold thousands of years after it's time. The writing represents methaphorical writing and allegorical writing at it's best. God spoke MESSAGES!!! God had MEANING in his words. When Jesus came to us..he came to us in human form because he was human. Just being human everyone reads and writes based on their perceptions. So while the bible is important to me, and I love reading it...it is a book, and not my God. I do not pray to it as many here seem to do. To take it literally is to not take it for what it's message is.

The bible does include both allegory and metaphor, however, historically speaking, I believe it as literal. ah, yes... the "holy huddle. Disassociation completely from the world as a whole. I can't say that I agree with that. How can you reach the lost, if you are only with the saved? It makes little sense to me.
And what is important here is that many are NOT lost simply b/c they are not fundamentalists. Fundamentalsists hold much hate, and yet they think they have the hold on Christianity. God does not hate, and they give the devil too much credit. Humankind make their own path and are quite capable of doing evil things on their own witih no intervention from "satan". I believe in evil very much so. I do not believe in a "lucifer" or "satan"...Fundamentalists give evil a "name" to make it sound as if some outside influence is responsible for the evil things they do. Sorry...as humans..we are more than capable of being evil on our own.

true. Which is why despite holding what could be called "Fundamentalist beliefs" I will not identify with Fundamentalism. It isn't fundamentalism, it's extremism.
fair enough.
You got that right my friend. I'm in a book club right now reading "Heart of Christianity"...truly is the best book I ever read b/c it does give accurate and true representation of christianity today. They do NOT use terms like fundamentalism b/c many liberals FUNDAMENTALLY BELIEVE in the foundation of Christianity...however, you would never call them Fundamentalists b/c the term has been taken to represent the extreme and disturbing postions of Christianity. Anyway, if you haven't read it..pick it up. Short book, easy to read, and point on!
 
Upvote 0

Uphill Battle

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2005
18,279
1,221
48
✟23,416.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
You got that right my friend. I'm in a book club right now reading "Heart of Christianity"...truly is the best book I ever read b/c it does give accurate and true representation of christianity today. They do NOT use terms like fundamentalism b/c many liberals FUNDAMENTALLY BELIEVE in the foundation of Christianity...however, you would never call them Fundamentalists b/c the term has been taken to represent the extreme and disturbing postions of Christianity. Anyway, if you haven't read it..pick it up. Short book, easy to read, and point on!
I'll look it up!
 
Upvote 0

BAFRIEND

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2007
15,847
1,173
✟23,362.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Interesting, I find the ones who "pervert" the scriptures are the ones that have falsely translated out 1 Cor 6:9

How sad. :(

Here, let me make you feel better by providing you with the correct translation:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders... (1 Cor. 6:9, NIV)

Hope that makes you feel happier :) .
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,145
EST
✟1,123,523.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[SIZE=-1]Interesting, I find the ones who "pervert" the scriptures are the ones that have falsely translated out 1 Cor 6:9.

"One cannot be absolutely certain that the two key words in I Corinthians 6:9 are meant as references to male homosexual behavior." -- Victor Paul Furnish, a Professor of New Testament from Perkins School of Theology, Dallas.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/inspiritus/The%20Mystery.htm[/SIZE]

Interesting I find that people who support homosexuality will make up anything, such as a phony quote from somebody who does not even exist. A link to the faculty of Perkins School of Theology. Nobody named Furnish on their faculty.

Perkins School of Theology Faculty

Even if this guy did exist, when, where, under what circumstances was this supposedly said. A random statement without any context, any references, is totally worthless.

And even if you could find a recognized Greek scholar who would say garbage like this. All anyone has to do is quote the early church fathers to PROVE that in the first 300-400 years of the church, the church leaders who spoke Greek, unanimously interpreted the "two key words in I Corinthians 6:9 are [absolutely] meant as references to male homosexual behavior."

The early church interpreted αρσενοκοιτης/arsenokoités [1 Cor 6:9] variously as,
• “sodomy,”
• “filth of sodomy,”
• ”lawless lust,”
• “lust,”
• “impurity,”
• “works of the flesh,”
• “carnal,”
• “lawless intercourse,”
• “shameless,”
• “burning with insane love for boys,”
• “licentiousness,”
• “co-habitors with males,”
• “lusters after mankind
• “monstrosities,” etc.​
Quoted from;
• Ignatius, 30-107 AD;
• Polycarp 65 - 155 AD;
• Irenaeus, 120-202 AD;
• Theophilus, 115 - 181 AD;
• Clement of Alexandria, 153 - 217 AD;
• Tertullian, 145-220 AD;
• Cyprian, 200-258 AD; and
• Origen, 185-254 AD.​
Note the dates, of these writings, extend from ca. 50 AD through 258 AD, more than 250 years. The early church fathers interpreted the scriptures as condemning ALL homosexuals acts; by ALL persons, male and female; in ALL places, under ALL circumstance, at ALL times, NO exceptions.

The ECF did NOT even mention, and did NOT limit the condemnation of homosexual acts to, “homosexual rape,” “temple prostitution,” pagan temples and/or religious activities!
Epistle Of Ignatius [Disciple of John] To The Ephesians [A.D. 30-107.]

But as to the practice of magic, or the impure love of boys, or murder, it is superfluous to write to you, since such vices are forbidden to be committed even by the Gentiles. I do not issue commands on these points as if I were an apostle; but, as your fellow-servant, I put you in mind of them.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.html

Epistle of Polycarp [Disciple of John] to the Philippians Chapter V.-The Duties of Deacons, Youths, and Virgins. [65 - 155 AD]

In like manner, let the young men also be blameless in all things, being especially careful to preserve purity, and keeping themselves in, as with a bridle, from every kind of evil. For it is well that they should be cut off from the lusts that are in the world, since "every lust warreth against the spirit; " and "neither fornicators, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, shall inherit the kingdom of God, [1 Cor 6:9] " nor those who do things inconsistent and unbecoming.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.ii.html

Irenaeus [Disciple of Polycarp]Against Heresies Book V [120-202 AD]

So also he who has continued in the aforesaid works of the flesh, being truly reckoned as carnal, because he did not receive the Spirit of God, shall not have power to inherit the kingdom of heaven. As, again, the same apostle [Paul] testifies, saying to the Corinthians, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err," he says: "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor revilers, nor rapacious persons, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And these ye indeed have been; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified, but ye have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." [1 Cor 6:9].

Since, therefore, in that passage [1 Cor 6:9] he [Paul] recounts those works of the flesh which are without the Spirit, which bring death [upon their doers],

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.html

Theophilus to Autolycus Book III [115 - 181 AD]
Chapter VI.-Other Opinions of the Philosophers.


And these things the other laws of the Romans and Greeks also prohibit. Why, then, do Epicurus and the Stoics teach incest and sodomy, with which doctrines they have filled libraries, so that from boyhood this lawless intercourse is learned?

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.iv.ii.iii.html

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor. [Paedagogus.] Book III [153 - 217 AD]

The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast His eye on them. . . .Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.iii.html

Clement of Alexandria Exhortation To The Heathen

And what are the laws? “Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not seduce boys; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt love the Lord thy God.” And the complements of these are those laws of reason and words of sanctity which are inscribed on men’s hearts: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; to him who strikes thee on the cheek, present also the other;” “thou shalt not lust, for by lust alone thou hast committed adultery.”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.ii.html

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1

But life has reached this pitch of licentiousness through the wantonness of wickedness, and lasciviousness is diffused over the cities, having become law. Beside them women stand in the stews, offering their own flesh for hire for lewd pleasure, and boys, taught to deny their sex, act the part of women. Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature; women are at once wives and husbands: no passage is closed against libidinousness; [i.e. every possible body opening is used for “lechery”/“libidinousness.”] and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.i.html

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor - Pedagogos Book 3
Chapter 3
Against Men Who Embellish Themselves


Such was predicted of old, and the result is notorious: the whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans: these detested effeminacy of conduct; and the giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the extremest penalty, according to the righteousness of the law.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.iii.html

Tertullian On Modesty [145-220 AD]
Chapter XVI.-General Consistency of the Apostle.


Just as, again, among all other crimes-nay, even before all others-when affirming that "adulterers, and fornicators, and effeminates, and co-habitors with males, will not attain the kingdom of God, [1 Cor 6:9]" he premised, "Do not err" -to wit, if you think they will attain it. But to them from whom "the kingdom" is taken away, of course the life which exists in the kingdom is not permitted either. Moreover, by superadding, "But such indeed ye have been; but ye have received ablution, but ye have been sanctified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God;" [1 Cor 6:9]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.viii.html

Tertullian The Chaplet, or De Corona. Chapter VI. [145-220 AD]

Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one [law] prevailing all over the world, engraven on the natural tables to which the apostle too is wont to appeal, as when in respect. of the woman's veil he says, "Does not even Nature teach you? " -as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires, he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing nature. Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle [Rom 1.] he authenticates nature, when he asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural, by way of penal retribution for their error. [Rom 1:27]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.vi.html

Tertullian VII. On Modesty.[sup]1[/sup] Chapter IV.-Adultery and Fornication Synonymous.

Accordingly, among us, secret connections as well-connections, that is, not first professed in presence of the Church-run risk of being judged akin to adultery and fornication; nor must we let them, if thereafter woven together by the covering of marriage, elude the charge. But all the other frenzies of passions-impious both toward the bodies and toward the sexes-beyond the laws of nature, we banish not only from the threshold, but from all shelter of the Church, because they are not sins, but monstrosities.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.viii.html

Cyprian Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews [200-258 AD]

65.
That all sins are put away in baptism.

In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: "Neither fornicators, nor those who serve idols, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor the lusters after mankind, nor thieves, nor cheaters, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers, shall obtain the kingdom of God. And these things indeed ye were: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." [1 Cor 6:9].

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.xii.html

Origen Against Celsus Book 8 [185-254 AD] [student of Clement of Alexandria]

and that they often exhibit in their character a high degree of gravity, of purity, and
integrity; while those who call themselves wise have despised these virtues, and have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, “men with men working that which is unseemly.” [Rom 1:27]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.viii.html
 
Upvote 0