Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

[99percentatheism]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 1043 by 99percentatheism]



99percent, of those 'gay marrieds' that choose to belong to a Christian Church ...what IS this 'sin' that you keep referring to? Please be specific because you're being far too broad here as well as presenting scriptures that are also as broad and don't appear to relate to this particular topic. You should be able to articulate your particular 'problem' with gay marrieds in one sentence if you choose to do so. So, would you do so without all of the additional drama, hysteria and padding?

Please respond to the following:
1. What precisely is it that gay people are doing in the Church that is causing such a threat to your Church . . .?
2. What does what you imagine a homosexual couple might be doing in their bedroom have to do with their effectiveness as a Christian?
3. What does what you imagine a heterosexual couple doing in their bedroom make them more effective Christians than the gay couple?
4. Should not what gay or straight couples might be doing in their bedrooms be off-limits to the Church?

If you need to search through the Bible to find some ambiguous scriptures that have nothing to do with the topic ...please, just tell me that you can't answer the questions in your own words. I'll understand ...really I will . . .

Well, answering your first question is difficult without greater detail. Many gay people, I imagine, attend church without anyone in the church even knowing about their sexual sin. Why exactly is the church even aware of a gay person's sexual sin? Is it a result of confession that church members know about it? Is it a result of gossip? Is the gay person repentant for their sin? Are they trying to turn away from their sins? Are they denying that their sexual sin is even a sin at all? Are they attempting to undermine the moral convictions of the church? What is the message that they are relaying to the children and other members the church? Are they trying to convince the church that being gay is a Godly lifestyle? Are they rejecting the word of God?

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (Mathew 118:15-17)

"Dear brothers and sisters, if another believer is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself." (Galatians 6:1)

"But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part: that I may not overcharge you all. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him." (2 Corinthians: 5-8)

Honestly, a Christian is a follower of Christ. It's hard to follow Christ when you are living in a state of denial regarding your sins. A Christian who is living in such a state of denial is indeed a less effective Christian, that is if they are truly a Christian at all.

[Danmark]

....

Honestly, a Christian is a follower of Christ. It's hard to follow Christ when you are living in a state of denial regarding your sins. A Christian who is living in such a state of denial is indeed a less effective Christian, that is if they are truly a Christian at all.

I don't get this at all. If a gay couple loves the Lord and honors God's precepts and laws; lives together in faithful love to each other, forsaking all others; doing their best to honor the example of the love of Christ; putting themselves second, what exactly makes them "sinners?"

[99percentatheism]

Danmark

Really Stan... really?

What word would you like us to use when describing homosexual behavior in animals?

Your "HOMO" argument does not make the behavior disappear? The behavior is there, and that is what my argument is about. That you want to argue the "homo" part of the word is irrelevant to the observed behavior.

First your defense was homoSEXual (it being about the sex). Now it is HOMOsexual. We have cleaver readers here, and this will not go unnoticed.

When two male animals have sex with each other, is it not homosexual behavior that we are observing?

Yes Clownboat, REALLY.

Well I thought Pseudocopulation was a fairly accurate depiction of it.

"In English the word homosexual was first used in 1892 in the English translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia sexualis" which was a reference work, in German, on sexual perversions. It first appeared in 1886 and was enormously popular, being reprinted about once a year!"(http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_year_did ... ome_a_word)
"homosexual (adj.) 1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from Ger. homosexual, homosexuale (by 1880, in Gustav Jäger), from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos "same" (see homo- (1)) + Latin-based sexual. "Homosexual" is a barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it. It is, however, convenient, and now widely used. "Homogenic" has been suggested as a substitute. [H. Havelock Ellis, "Studies in Psychology," 1897] Sexual inversion (1883) was an earlier clinical term for it in English. The noun is recorded by 1895. In technical use, either male or female; but in non-technical use almost always male. Slang shortened form homo first attested 1929." (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... hmode=none)

I've no doubt there are some clever readers here and some also understand, which is probably why only YOU are commenting.

Stan,

You have to be VERY careful dealing with people on the subject of gay activism.

As you can see, they do not play fair. . . .

99, what do you mean by not playing 'fair.'

Setup to be suspended or terminated (banned) by the authorities here.

Stan wrote:
"Pseudocopulation describes behaviors similar to copulation that serve a reproductive function for one or both participants but do not involve actual sexual union between the individuals. The use of 'pseudo' in this compound word, should clearly indicate it is not ACTUAL copulation. Hence it is NOT a homosexual activity. HOMO relates to humans. Don't really see how this is so hard to comprehend?
....
Sorry but that is NOT factual. Avoidance does NOT deal with the issue.
The fact is HOMO is relating to man, NOT animals and whatever animal behavior is cannot be construed as HOMO sexual in nature despite the prevarication. "

Is this of Stan's the kind of argument you consider 'fair?'

Well, maybe I have a bit more experience dealing with the cunningness of the gay-debate adversary, but Stan's views that same gender sex acts can only be futile attempts at the real thing is fair and of course accurate.

But I like it when certain kinds of human behavior are "equal" to what beasts do. Puts the debate in proper perspective.

In the first paragraph he suggests the mind bogglingly inept argument that unless copulation involves sexual union it is not "ACTUAL copulation" and therefore "NOT" homosexual.

Really? His science is perfect. Unless of course you can show how mammals are designed to take in sperm via the throat or rectum. And of course same gender "sex" between females is perfectly defined futility.

If we take this bit of confused logic seriously, then homosexuality in humans (the only kind Stan thinks can exist) is impossible since they are unable to have a true 'sexual union' because two normal men cannot produce a zygote.

Stan is still on the perfect scientific path.

Two women attempting to copulate can never produce a zygote either. Or any other kind offspring. So the anti-gay side is using logic and the LGBT activists are using emotionalism to override reason. making of course homosexual behavior driven exclusively by a mind that makes the body do unnatural things.

Then in his second paragraph he suggests that two male animals who behave sexually toward each other, can't be "HOMO sexual" because "homo" refers to man only; therefore, according to Stan only humans can be 'homosexual.'

He is mistaken on, but still on the solid scientific path that two males cannot really have sexual intercourse. They can only act out the real thing in places where the very act defines the word aberrant.

He is of course wrong. His pretension that male to male sexual behavior somehow either does not exist or because he won't call it 'HOMO sexual' it does not count.

Propaganda and powerful social and political neologisms have taken control of the debate to a point where logic cannot be used because it is now labeled a hate crime. A penis penatrating the anus and ejaculating into a rectum cannot be "equated" to sexual intercourse. Two females rubbing each other in many different ways to achieve an orgasm isn't the same thing as sexual intercourse either. That is just a scientific fact.

The second obvious error is that "homo" does not refer to man alone, but to the genus we share with Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and homo neanderthalensis. . . . not to mention our other close relatives in the family Hominidae.

In addition to transparently incorrect logic, Stan is also wrong on his facts as well as his idea of proper terminology:

I have proven he used improper definitions in one way but remaimed on solid scientific ground.

Homosexual behavior in animals is sexual behavior among non-human species that may be interpreted as homosexual or bisexual. This may include sexual activity, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairs. Research indicates that various forms of this are found throughout the animal kingdom.Close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been observed engaging in such behavior and this is well documented for 500 of them.[/i][/size]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... in_animals

You are equating humans to beasts and worms.

Duly noted.

[Sonofason]

....

Honestly, a Christian is a follower of Christ. It's hard to follow Christ when you are living in a state of denial regarding your sins. A Christian who is living in such a state of denial is indeed a less effective Christian, that is if they are truly a Christian at all.

I don't get this at all. If a gay couple loves the Lord and honors God's precepts and laws; lives together in faithful love to each other, forsaking all others; doing their best to honor the example of the love of Christ; putting themselves second, what exactly makes them "sinners?"

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
(1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

Let's have a look at the NIV translation:
"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men"

It seems pretty clear to me that homosexuality is sin.

While it is clear from scripture that sins can be forgiven, it also seems quite apparent from scripture that in order for sins to be forgiven, the sinner must be repentant for their sins.

Loving others is not the problem.
Loving God is not the problem.
Honoring and living according to Christ's example is not a problem.
It is men sodomizing other men that is the problem according to scripture.

[99percentatheism]

....

Honestly, a Christian is a follower of Christ. It's hard to follow Christ when you are living in a state of denial regarding your sins. A Christian who is living in such a state of denial is indeed a less effective Christian, that is if they are truly a Christian at all.

I don't get this at all. If a gay couple loves the Lord and honors God's precepts and laws; lives together in faithful love to each other, forsaking all others; doing their best to honor the example of the love of Christ; putting themselves second, what exactly makes them "sinners?"

While this begs the question of what makes a person a Christian, it is also better suited in its own thread. Write and OP and have at it elsewhere.

Now, of course, one has to ponder why a "non-theist" would be encouraging homosexuals to be "good Christians" while being oppositional to "Bible-believing Christians" all over this site. And of course, you have Christian marriage as immutably man and woman/husband and wife. You seem to be ignoring that. We Christians that oppose LGBT activism, which is based entirely on a secular worldview . . . have scripture supporting our actions, while the homosexuals have nothing in scripture supporting their demands to alter Christianity into just another chapter of secular relativism.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 1043 by 99percentatheism]



99percent, of those 'gay marrieds' that choose to belong to a Christian Church ...what IS this 'sin' that you keep referring to? Please be specific because you're being far too broad here as well as presenting scriptures that are also as broad and don't appear to relate to this particular topic. You should be able to articulate your particular 'problem' with gay marrieds in one sentence if you choose to do so. So, would you do so without all of the additional drama, hysteria and padding?

Please respond to the following:
1. What precisely is it that gay people are doing in the Church that is causing such a threat to your Church . . .?
2. What does what you imagine a homosexual couple might be doing in their bedroom have to do with their effectiveness as a Christian?
3. What does what you imagine a heterosexual couple doing in their bedroom make them more effective Christians than the gay couple?
4. Should not what gay or straight couples might be doing in their bedrooms be off-limits to the Church?

If you need to search through the Bible to find some ambiguous scriptures that have nothing to do with the topic ...please, just tell me that you can't answer the questions in your own words. I'll understand ...really I will . . .

Well, answering your first question is difficult without greater detail. Many gay people, I imagine, attend church without anyone in the church even knowing about their sexual sin. Why exactly is the church even aware of a gay person's sexual sin? Is it a result of confession that church members know about it? Is it a result of gossip? Is the gay person repentant for their sin? Are they trying to turn away from their sins? Are they denying that their sexual sin is even a sin at all? Are they attempting to undermine the moral convictions of the church? What is the message that they are relaying to the children and other members the church? Are they trying to convince the church that being gay is a Godly lifestyle? Are they rejecting the word of God?

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (Mathew 118:15-17)

"Dear brothers and sisters, if another believer is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself." (Galatians 6:1)

"But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part: that I may not overcharge you all. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him." (2 Corinthians: 5-8)

Honestly, a Christian is a follower of Christ. It's hard to follow Christ when you are living in a state of denial regarding your sins. A Christian who is living in such a state of denial is indeed a less effective Christian, that is if they are truly a Christian at all.

When the message is "anything goes as long as it makes you feel good," it is secular in nature and foundation. This is why the Jesus of liberal theology becomes more like a hippy commune free love guru than the Judge of all mankind.

[10CC]

These damn LGBT's how dare they listen to and follow what jesus taught. Real christians would never consider such a thing would you 99?

[help3434]

[Replying to post 1063 by 99percentatheism]

May we non-theists are concerned about Christians who save a same sex sexual orientation and how they are treated by their fellow Christians.

[10CC]

[Replying to post 1043 by 99percentatheism]



99percent, of those 'gay marrieds' that choose to belong to a Christian Church ...what IS this 'sin' that you keep referring to? Please be specific because you're being far too broad here as well as presenting scriptures that are also as broad and don't appear to relate to this particular topic. You should be able to articulate your particular 'problem' with gay marrieds in one sentence if you choose to do so. So, would you do so without all of the additional drama, hysteria and padding?

Please respond to the following:
1. What precisely is it that gay people are doing in the Church that is causing such a threat to your Church . . .?
2. What does what you imagine a homosexual couple might be doing in their bedroom have to do with their effectiveness as a Christian?
3. What does what you imagine a heterosexual couple doing in their bedroom make them more effective Christians than the gay couple?
4. Should not what gay or straight couples might be doing in their bedrooms be off-limits to the Church?

If you need to search through the Bible to find some ambiguous scriptures that have nothing to do with the topic ...please, just tell me that you can't answer the questions in your own words. I'll understand ...really I will . . .

Well, answering your first question is difficult without greater detail. Many gay people, I imagine, attend church without anyone in the church even knowing about their sexual sin. Why exactly is the church even aware of a gay person's sexual sin? Is it a result of confession that church members know about it? Is it a result of gossip? Is the gay person repentant for their sin? Are they trying to turn away from their sins? Are they denying that their sexual sin is even a sin at all? Are they attempting to undermine the moral convictions of the church? What is the message that they are relaying to the children and other members the church? Are they trying to convince the church that being gay is a Godly lifestyle? Are they rejecting the word of God?

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (Mathew 118:15-17)

"Dear brothers and sisters, if another believer is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself." (Galatians 6:1)

"But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part: that I may not overcharge you all. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him." (2 Corinthians: 5-8)

Honestly, a Christian is a follower of Christ. It's hard to follow Christ when you are living in a state of denial regarding your sins. A Christian who is living in such a state of denial is indeed a less effective Christian, that is if they are truly a Christian at all.

When the message is "anything goes as long as it makes you feel good," it is secular in nature and foundation. This is why the Jesus of liberal theology becomes more like a hippy commune free love guru than the Judge of all mankind.

Now why would jesus bother with any judging? You and your lot have taken it upon yourselves to usurp him of that position. Haven't you?

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 1043 by 99percentatheism]



99percent, of those 'gay marrieds' that choose to belong to a Christian Church ...what IS this 'sin' that you keep referring to? Please be specific because you're being far too broad here as well as presenting scriptures that are also as broad and don't appear to relate to this particular topic. You should be able to articulate your particular 'problem' with gay marrieds in one sentence if you choose to do so. So, would you do so without all of the additional drama, hysteria and padding?

Please respond to the following:
1. What precisely is it that gay people are doing in the Church that is causing such a threat to your Church . . .?
2. What does what you imagine a homosexual couple might be doing in their bedroom have to do with their effectiveness as a Christian?
3. What does what you imagine a heterosexual couple doing in their bedroom make them more effective Christians than the gay couple?
4. Should not what gay or straight couples might be doing in their bedrooms be off-limits to the Church?

If you need to search through the Bible to find some ambiguous scriptures that have nothing to do with the topic ...please, just tell me that you can't answer the questions in your own words. I'll understand ...really I will . . .

Well, answering your first question is difficult without greater detail. Many gay people, I imagine, attend church without anyone in the church even knowing about their sexual sin. Why exactly is the church even aware of a gay person's sexual sin? Is it a result of confession that church members know about it? Is it a result of gossip? Is the gay person repentant for their sin? Are they trying to turn away from their sins? Are they denying that their sexual sin is even a sin at all? Are they attempting to undermine the moral convictions of the church? What is the message that they are relaying to the children and other members the church? Are they trying to convince the church that being gay is a Godly lifestyle? Are they rejecting the word of God?

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (Mathew 118:15-17)

"Dear brothers and sisters, if another believer is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself." (Galatians 6:1)

"But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part: that I may not overcharge you all. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him." (2 Corinthians: 5-8)

Honestly, a Christian is a follower of Christ. It's hard to follow Christ when you are living in a state of denial regarding your sins. A Christian who is living in such a state of denial is indeed a less effective Christian, that is if they are truly a Christian at all.

When the message is "anything goes as long as it makes you feel good," it is secular in nature and foundation. This is why the Jesus of liberal theology becomes more like a hippy commune free love guru than the Judge of all mankind.

We humans are truly in a sad state of affairs. I wonder, as did Jesus, whether or not a person of faith will be found on the earth when He returns.

"...every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 18:14)