The Gay Denomination?

[99percentatheism]

The Gay Denomination.

For those people that desire same gender sexual behavior or thoughts, AND that claim to be a Christian and claim that their beliefs and theology can fit the New Testament witness, instead of waging an endless, fruitless and vicious war on other Christians - that will NEVER accept their gay doctrines and dogmas . . ., - why won't they just declare a new and alternative denomination, just like Watch Tower theological adherants and Mormons?

Why the need to join forces with anti-Christian and secularist movements to attack "Bible believing" Christians?

Afterall, in referencing the New Testament, there is no justifiable comparison of sex acts to being a slave (slavery), or the charge of bigotry and hatefulness in holding that marriage is a man and a woman.

Why not just start an "Out and Proud" Gay Denomination?

[kayky]

Once again you only respond to the posts that suit you and ignore those you have no answer to.

[SilenceInMotion]

Once again you only respond to the posts that suit you and ignore those you have no answer to.

I see it's a tradition on here to make dishonest statements. Oh well, as long as others feed your delusion. You all are so bent out of shape that a Christian can make a case against the things you all claim, having been so used to harping 'political correctness' . It eats you up inside, so you say certain things in hopes that it will continue others in laboring under a consistent delusion.
I have proven everything that can be proven and deduced everything else with reason. You all are the one's snarling and blowing your liberal trumpets. Breaking the rules, you see.
Not that a *certain someone* is going to call you out on it. It is obviously a crime to be an intelligent conservative Catholic on these forums.

[KCKID]

Silenceinmotion, I notice that you have not responded to my claim that it was the vast abuses of the Catholic church that led to Protestantism in the first place. How does that fit in with your idea of God's one true Church?

Apparently, SilenceinMotion has a habit of shirking questions asked of him. He made the claim that homosexuality was idolatry (THIS coming from a Roman Catholic who prays to statues!) and I asked him to provide scriptures to back this up. I'm still waiting.

You all have the wrong definition of idolatry. You all have the convenient one which makes the very word meaningless. Homosexuality is a life long deviance dually noted in the Bible.

And, it's THIS proof from the Bible that I'm asking for. It's irrelevant whether or not 'all of our' definitions of idolatry are wrong, I'm just asking you to back up YOUR claim from scripture.

Homosexuals put vanity and lies over the Gospel, and this is idolatry.

Again, where in the scriptures can we find this? It just sounds like meaningless rhetoric to me.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Romans 1:24-27
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Checkmate
*next*

I cannot believe the ignorance and also the arrogance of some on this board. An ENTIRE thread has been dedicated to the scripture you give above and an alternative - and, in my opinion, a more VALID - interpretation of said text given. The thread is called Romans 1:26,27 and is STILL there to be scrutinized by the anti-gays and refuted if they are able to do so. So far NO ONE HAS refuted the interpretation offered because they CANNOT!

THAT includes you.

So, there is no 'checkmate' here other than in your own mind.

Note: At least you're correct on the 'idolatry' part of the scripture. Idolatry is EXACTLY what the text is referring to, Unfortunately for you, however, homosexuality is NOT the idolatry in question.

Arrogance, yes. *I am Roman Catholic*. Heretics do not sway me, and in fact, what you posit is blasphemy.

Interpreting the scriptures is blasphemy?

Ignorant? Lol,

You heard me.

Scripture is very plain on the matter of homosexuality.

Not so. And, evidence has been given of this.

Nobody has to refute it because it is self-evidently wrong.

Interpretation: I'm not interested in even considering it because I'm an arrogant Roman Catholic ...your definition of yourself.

What people like you do is re-illustrate orthodox, accurate views into what fits your bias. In that way, Scripture can say anything and it will not suffice.

If my particular 'bias' is to counter hateful messages that come from an 'untouchable' source - i.e. no scrutinizing what WE Roman Catholics have held dear forever - then I stand guilty. Furthermore, I don't care.

Proud, active homosexuals are going to Hell.

A fairy tale. Is that a Roman Catholic fallacy as well? What about proud, active bigots? Are they going to hell too?

The Bible simply TELLS IT.

It isn't necessarily the Bible that I don't believe ...it's the vitriolic method that some of you use to present the Bible to others that irks me.

If you do not like it, tough. Take your liberal nonsense somewhere where it belongs.

It belongs here ...this is a debate forum. Are you really interested in debating or would you rather continue spewing your misappropriated message of hate?

Incidentally, though off-topic, a quick question: Was it really the Roman Catholic Church that changed the solemnity of the Creation Sabbath (the 7th-day as per the 4th - or YOUR 3rd - commandment) to Sunday (the 1st-day) simply because it (the RC Church) determined that it had the authority to do so? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do for now so as not to derail. I do believe that evidence of this is found in your Catechism. If so, wow! Usurping the authority of God. Not bad! Seems as if arrogance permeates the entire RC Church . . .

[KCKID]

SilenceInMotion, you have not yet responded to kayky's claim that it was the vast abuses of the Catholic church that led to Protestantism in the first place. How does that fit in with your idea of God's one true Church?

Would you please offer a response?

Sorry, kayky ...I felt that I'd jumped in ahead of you, that's all. Not that MY question was answered too effectively.

[Slopeshoulder]

For the record, after slamming SIM with facts, I haven't received a response.
All's well because it is a lovely evening and I'm not in the mood to be hated by a hater.

[KCKID]

For the record, after slamming SIM with facts, I haven't received a response.

Well, there you have it ...you made the mistake of clouding the issues with FACTS. You don't really expect a response concerning actual facts from someone incapable of accepting anything other than RC dogma, do you?

All's well because it is a lovely evening and I'm not in the mood to be hated by a hater.

Ah yes . . .

[SilenceInMotion]

For the record, after slamming SIM with facts, I haven't received a response.
All's well because it is a lovely evening and I'm not in the mood to be hated by a hater.

Lol, how many times are you all going to make the same dishonest statement over and over again?
I have reconciled every single thing you all have put on here. It's all there, take a looksy. Quite frankly, I am starting to simply stop debating with people that are just going to spam a thread with a lie as if to bury what I have put up. That is called being a child. Every one of you are being dishonest and manipulative, unwilling to concede to the fact that you all cannot see the difference between a Christian and a blasphemer.

Don't worry, you will all get by the rules on liberal extremist bigotry, I'll be the one that gets banned. It's what you all have depended on anyway.

[Goat]

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Romans 1:24-27
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Checkmate
*next*

Well,.. how is misreading a passage 'checkmate'. What it appears to me is that there were those people who worshiped the creature 'more than the god', and therefore were cursed by lust. It appears that woman 'had unnatural lusts' what ever that means (THat is not defined).... and men lusted after each other as a PUNISHMENT for the error.

It appears not to be a checkmate after all.

[SilenceInMotion]

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Romans 1:24-27
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Checkmate
*next*

Well,.. how is misreading a passage 'checkmate'. What it appears to me is that there were those people who worshiped the creature 'more than the god', and therefore were cursed by lust. It appears that woman 'had unnatural lusts' what ever that means (THat is not defined).... and men lusted after each other as a PUNISHMENT for the error.

It appears not to be a checkmate after all.

The passage is obviously meaning 'the creature' as 'carnal rages'. The rest of the passage indicates this. IT IS OBVIOUS AS DAY. It appears that the Bible also states literally and explicitly that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom, by which you all cannot accept, and that it was considered detestable and punishable by death in the OT, which you all think God just magically changed his mind on what isn't sexually deviant.
And so why should your ridiculous perception change on account of the passage given?

Everything in Scripture points to what I have stated on here, and you all deny it because it doesn't fit your liberal bias. Your very notion is a bad joke, as is with the fact that you are an atheist who calls their self Jewish simply because 1/5 of your blood can trace back to Israel.
I have lost patience with this thread and am unsubscribing. Get your religious education from the religious, not heretics and blasphemers.*And it's the Catholic that is dishonest? Lol. It is no secret why Jews cater to Protestants more then Catholics. We're the real Christians, and every Jew knows it and hates us for it.*

[cnorman18]

"Jews cater to Protestants"?

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Perhaps you should try to find a "forum" where everyone is required to agree with you. Why did you come here, if you can't bear disagreement?