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?

[10CC]

[Replying to post 1096 by 99percentatheism]

This is a joke isn't it?

Do you ever actually read the posts you allegedly respond to?

[Clownboat]

Surely, the woman deserved death

Justify this obscenity.

“If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel."
(Deuteronomy 22:22)

NO! I said justify the obscenity not supply the obscene passage that supports it.

Justify it.

I'm sorry, I cannot justify the obscenity of adultery.

You know it should really give you pause for thought when in every thread you find yourself in a position of being unable to answer questions, of needing continually to change the subject, of having to evade and equivocate constantly.

Doesn't any of that tell you something is wrong on your side of the fence?

You should read on. I didn't answer the question here, but I did answer it elsewhere. I fully admit that I believe that adulterers do deserve to be stoned to death. I also admitted that I am not obliged to give to everyone that which they deserve. I am free to have mercy on whomever I choose to have mercy on.

I hope that you will be stoning your children to death at the next sign they show of their humanity. That is after all what your god commands you to do.

Murder is in fact a sign of humanity. Many human beings kill and murder other human beings. But I am quite surprised that you would bring up my children, and try to invoke me to stone them to death. Is that right?

I cannot keep saying it just because you don't hear what I've said. I'm not going to play this little childish game with you. You have now assaulted my family, and I am not going to tell you what sort of emotion that instills in me. But I can tell you this, I'd love to meet you one day. We could see how our opinions change about others when we meet them face to face. I could maybe get tossed of this site for this comment of mine, but I really don't care. It would not be my loss. It would be yours. Keep talking about my kids. I'll find you, and we can discuss face to face what people deserve.

Pot meet kettle. Examine the log in your own eye please!

You have stated that adulterers deserve to be stoned to death, and then you whine about someone suggesting you stone your own children. Are you worried you might actually do it, because I don't understand your level of anger? It's not like he suggested someone else stones your children, just you. Come on man, think before you type!

Adulterers and presumably homosexuals deserve death according to you, but you want to get all self righteous when someone calls you out for not stoning your disobedient children. He is not the one claiming that they deserve any punishment after all. Unlike your claim.

Seriously, take a step back and look at this exchange as if you were an outsider. Who is the real threat here, the person that claims real people deserve death, or the person that suggests doing what the Bible says to a Bible follower about their own children?

You meeting us in person will not make you look any better in our eyes.
Remember your words: "I fully admit that I believe that adulterers do deserve to be stoned to death."

I am so glad you don't act on what you feel people deserve! There are just not enough rocks to go around.

[Clownboat]

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.

Woops, you seem to have forgotten to address the most relevant parts:

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nimal.html

[Sonofason]

Murder is in fact a sign of humanity. Many human beings kill and murder other human beings. But I am quite surprised that you would bring up my children, and try to invoke me to stone them to death. Is that right?

I cannot keep saying it just because you don't hear what I've said. I'm not going to play this little childish game with you. You have now assaulted my family, and I am not going to tell you what sort of emotion that instills in me. But I can tell you this, I'd love to meet you one day. We could see how our opinions change about others when we meet them face to face. I could maybe get tossed of this site for this comment of mine, but I really don't care. It would not be my loss. It would be yours. Keep talking about my kids. I'll find you, and we can discuss face to face what people deserve.

You're way off here, in at least a couple of ways. First it is wrong to take an example used in an argument, and treat it as a literal threat. It's even worse to use that to justify making a direct threat to another, because you have chosen to be offended when no offense was intended.

The point that was made is simply that those who would be subjected to your extremist view of stoning adulterers to death may be our own children, since according to the Bible, 'All have sinned.' More importantly, at least from a Christian perspective, is that Jesus taught exactly the opposite of what you are preaching, and did so regarding this very law.

I don't care who you are, nor where you are, nor why you are. None of you have any business anywhere making any reference whatsoever to my children. I do not care if any threat is intended or not. If you want to draw such an analogy then use your own children. My children are not a topic for discussion. And you won't discuss them, and 10CC won't discuss them any further.

No one is discussing your children. We are discussing your belief, which you attribute to Christianity, that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for adultery, despite the fact Jesus said the opposite.

Do you consider the death penalty appropriate for the sin of wearing a wool/cotton blend? How about for liars? Should cowards be put to death? Magicians? Idol worshippers? How about simply not believing what you believe. Should 'unbelievers' be put to death?

How about those who issue orders without authority?

You, Divine Insight, and 10CC are all misrepresenting what I have said, and I am quite frustrated that you will not see it and admit it.

I never said that the death penalty is appropriate for any crime. What I said was that adulterers deserve to be stoned to death. What I said was, that I am not worthy to give people what they deserve. What I said was I would never harm anyone, even if they deserve to be harmed. But you continue to misconstrue what I say, as you always do. I don't blame you. When you don't have an argument, what do you have left, other than attempt to slander your opponent.

I'm sure that most everyone here knows what you are saying; however, it's those barbaric commands of God that you're evidently okay with that is the present issue. It would be puzzling to many as to why you and others don't appear to question - as they do - how this supposed loving God would command such wicked things of people. Killing someone, AND often for very minor infringements, simply goes against the grain of any decent person whether it be God giving the instructions or not. And yet, you would (as you've already indicated) want to string up anyone other than God if they even hinted at harming your kids. What you don't seem to understand is that everyone here is on your side in that THEY object to God commanding that harm be done to your kids. But, strangely, you don't appear to mind just as long as it happens to be God doing the commanding. It's extremely difficult for many people to make any sense of that.

It is not wicked to stone an adulterer to death. It is what they deserve. There is nothing barbaric about it. But, we don't have to give everyone what they deserve. We can recognize that they are sinful creatures as all of us are, and have compassion on them, and spare them what they deserve.

Recognizing that someone deserves to die, is not the same thing as what you have falsely accuse me of. Now I can add your name to my list of those intending to slander me, as you too are misrepresenting what I've said. You have just said that I, "would (as you've already indicated) want to string up anyone..." Please find a quote of mine that says such a thing. I can tell you, you can't. I have never said I wanted to harm anyone for anything, not ever.

If my child should become an adulterer, my child would deserve to be stoned to death. But certainly, as my child's father, I would hope for a better outcome for my child. I love my child, and I don't want my child to die. But that is selfish. If my child is an adulterer, my child deserves to die.

Now can we stop talking about my children?

[KCKID]

I asked 4 SPECIFIC questions of 99percentatheism. I asked him to answer the questions in his own words without the usual dramatics, the unnecessary padding and without the use of ambiguous scriptures that have little or nothing to do with the topic. You will notice, dear reader, that he was unable to do so. Since I'm a fair person I'll give him another chance.

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?

Other than derailing this thread, which is a classic ploy of the side that is losing, I'd like to all of the anti-Semitic rhetoric to cease in a thread I invented.

You personally have a problem with gay marrieds in the Church. I want to know - in plain English - WHY ...? Can you give me a direct answer as to the 'why'?

Here's what THIS thread is about. Either answer the OP or admit defeat. And of course, for your own satisfaction, start your own thread;

Lest we forget, here is the OP for this thread:

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.

Yes, I've read the OP several times and HAVE acknowledged that biblical marriage is none other than male/female or male/many females that become the property of the male. They are chattels and not equals. A man's home is his first priority. The female was allegedly formed from a rib of Adam because 'a helper' for Adam (that's the biblical role for a wife) could not be found among the animals. Who knows ...if a giraffe could have been found to fulfill the role it could well have become male/giraffe.

That said, since the OP has nothing to do with anything other than your own personal dislike for gay people in general and gay married people that *gulp* choose to belong to a Church I have therefore extended the argument. You present the OP as if directed by God to do so. Nonsense. This is all about you, 99percent, and your own bigotry and piety toward those that differ from YOUR particular mindset on this issue. You talk about a losing side regarding this issue ...well, you are on it, my friend and I can feel your frustration.

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

Jesus proclaimed and affirmed that divorce is against the will of God and implied NOTHING about people CHOOSING to marry whoever they wish. Using that particular scripture with which to condemn gay marriage is, if anything, an affront to God.

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?

Because they have a mind of their own ...?

And of course the only answer to which is a centuries upon centuries consistent and resounding: YES Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

For there is no other definition.

Clearly there is.

Let's move away from anti-Semtic rhetoric and worthless accusations and the common spin of political correctness . . . and RE-focus on the truth of what a Christian marriage is.

Hopefully no one has a problem with truth.

The truth is what I'm after. You have so far failed to answer with the truth 4 reasonable questions that I've asked of you.

[KCKID]

Now can we stop talking about my children?

Have you really not understood a word that's been said . . .?

[10CC]

KCKID
[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 . . .

Ply your subterfuge on someone else. It is your lack of the ability to use scripture in any way to celebrate gay activism that is on display here. You will never be able to use scripture to support the gay agenda and that is why you want the use of scripture disqualified.

And it is clear why.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all.

Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

- Galations 1

Since you choose to refuse to actually answer any of my positions, all I can assume is that you have no answer to orthodoxy other than tricks or of course insults and political neologisms.

All you have to do is to invent another religion and have at your gay agenda all you want. It's a bit unsettling, the demand that gay activism and LGBT political demands be superior to the Christian orthodoxy. Honest Christians desire to follow orthodox truth in honest Christian Churches that see the incompatible nature of LGBT social demands isn't a bad thing. In fact it is just honesty.

But alas, Christians have been through this all before and should realize that there is nothing new under the sun:

. . . I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

- Jude

I asked 4 SPECIFIC questions of 99percentatheism. I asked him to answer the questions in his own words without the usual dramatics, the unnecessary padding and without the use of ambiguous scriptures that have little or nothing to do with the topic. You will notice, dear reader, that he was unable to do so. Since I'm a fair person I'll give him another chance.

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?

Other than derailing this thread, which is a classic ploy of the side that is losing, I'd like to all of the anti-Semitic rhetoric to cease in a thread I invented.

Here's what THIS thread is about. Either answer the OP or admit defeat. And of course, for your own satisfaction, start your own thread;

Lest we forget, here is the OP for this thread:

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?

And of course the only answer to which is a centuries upon centuries consistent and resounding: YES Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

For there is no other definition.

Let's move away from anti-Semtic rhetoric and worthless accusations and the common spin of political correctness . . . and RE-focus on the truth of what a Christian marriage is.

Hopefully no one has a problem with truth.

Politically correct antisemitism? That is priceless.

[Donray]

Recognizing that someone deserves to die, is not the same thing as what you have falsely accuse me of. Now I can add your name to my list of those intending to slander me, as you too are misrepresenting what I've said. You have just said that I, "would (as you've already indicated) want to string up anyone..." Please find a quote of mine that says such a thing. I can tell you, you can't. I have never said I wanted to harm anyone for anything, not ever.

If my child should become an adulterer, my child would deserve to be stoned to death. But certainly, as my child's father, I would hope for a better outcome for my child. I love my child, and I don't want my child to die. But that is selfish. If my child is an adulterer, my child deserves to die.

Now can we stop talking about my children?

You have said many times that you want to string people up. What do you think saying you think your child should be stoned to death if they were an adulterer means?

You believe in a cruel, vindictive, mean God that you worship and want to be just as vindictive and cruel. So of course you are hang them if they sin type person. You are a coward since you would let others do the actual killing, but you would be there cheering everyone on.

[Danmark]

It is not wicked to stone an adulterer to death. It is what they deserve. There is nothing barbaric about it. But, we don't have to give everyone what they deserve. We can recognize that they are sinful creatures as all of us are, and have compassion on them, and spare them what they deserve.

Recognizing that someone deserves to die, is not the same thing as what you have falsely accuse me of. Now I can add your name to my list of those intending to slander me, as you too are misrepresenting what I've said.

OK. We all get it. You say it is not wicked to stone an adulterer to death; that they deserve a violent death for having consensual sex with the spouse of another. We understand you see nothing barbaric in this, after all, it is what they deserve according to you. But you might have compassion and spare them.

I take it from this that if someone is about to be stoned to death for adultery, you would not speak up to stop the killing? You would make no argument against 'giving them what they deserve,' except your silence, or perhaps to clarify that the executioner may elect not to kill if he chooses to be compassionate.

And you see nothing wrong or barbaric with this approach?

[Clownboat]

It is not wicked to stone an adulterer to death.

I abhor your opinion about this and I would find stoning an adulterer to death to be a wicked act. Claiming support from a god concept does not make this un-wicked IMO.

It is what they deserve.

We are biological creatures. I find it wicked to suggest stoning a human to death for acting on this biological function. I believe you would too if not for your religious book. I believe we should use our brains and not this barbaric book, but that's just me.

Please note, "I find it wicked" does not mean there should be no punishment at all. It means that I don't think we should stone people to death for this act.