Trying to use Ezekiel to squirm out of the condemnation of gay sex is moving the goal posts to another filed in a different town. Jews and Christians have held that sodomy means same-gender sex acts for many moons.
Except it is not just Ezekiel, no place in the entire Bible lists homosexual sex as a reason for the destruction of Sodom -- no place. It was discussed to death on this thread that you participated on. As for the Jews, they disagree with you on the sin of Sodom, they claim it was the sin of inhospitality. And heterosexuals are every bit as likely to perform sodomy as homosexuals; so even the usage of the word does not support homosexuality.
As for the tradition of the word sodomy, the tradition did not start until at least the sixth century; it was not a word at the time of Christ. So beyond the fact that an appeal to tradition is considered a logical fallacy, we also have Christ showing the Pharisees that tradition was not always correct.
You are not going to homosexualize the Church no matter how hard you try. Never.
I'm not trying to. You seem to make a lot of assumptions about me and it seems like they are all false. You merely reinforce much of what I wrote in my last post.
Liberal theology is the only tool for forcing GLBT culture onto and into the Church.
From the liberal Christians I know, this is completely false.
Evangelicals seek Sola scriptura.
Yes, I understand that is what they claim. But when you want to completely ignore the verse in Ezekiel that clearly states, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom", you show you have no interest in what the Bible states.
Gays seek a new scholar to alter scripture for some unseemly reason or two.
False, if for no other reason than it is an over generalization. There are any number of gay people which all have their own thoughts on religion.
And showing them false teachers leading them astray is a very loving thing to do.
Compared to lying about groups by overgeneralizing? From your actions here you appear to show exactly what type of teacher you are.
GLBT versus Christians is a good place to teach what GLBT's are doing to Christians.
It seems they are more concerned with condom distribution to young kids in high schools nationwide.
Strange, I've not seen gay groups at the forefront of condom distribution in schools; rather it has tended to be groups trying to prevent pregnancy that have spearheaded this effort. But the truth does not appear to matter to you, you just figure that if there is "sexuality" that you disapprove of that the gays should automatically be condemned for it. If you want to discuss the pros and cons of condom distribution, you should start another thread.
I could be wrong, but my eyes do not deceive me here. You never here of abstinence programs from GLBT promoters. Actualy its extreme opposite.
We've gone over this before. That you continue to claim this, despite having been shown that this is a lie, merely reinforces that you have no interest in truth. I have to wonder what has made you hate gays so much that you feel the need to continue to make the same false claims?
Conservative gays is like saying ham sandwhich eating Muslims. The two things don't go togther. GLBT's are extreme leftists. Boston and Frisco are just two easy examples of "the community."
Again, you have been given examples that prove this is false. Instead, you again want to overgeneralize in a weak attempt to make some sort of argument -- when in fact you merely show your argument to be nothing but hollow rhetoric.
Nominally Christian is like saying almost not dead. Of all of the gay kids I have worked with and talked to over the years, most come from broken homes.
And that proves what? The gay kids I know didn't come from broken homes, sorry. I have the feeling that the only gay kids you ever talk to are because of your work -- and if I recall correctly, pretty much all the kids you talk to because of work are from broken homes.
Bull. They were "kicked out" because they wanted to live their gay life in their parent's home.
Some, maybe. Many more were kicked out simply because they told their parents they were only attracted to the same sex. Seems like some of them are here on CF, maybe they will share their stories. Again, you seem to want to make an overgeneralization that you cannot provide any real evidence for.
The gays I know are empathetic to the poor and downtrodden. It's just what they want to do with the poor and downtrodden that seprates them from Christians.
Likely in that the gays don't want to force them to sit through a religious service before helping them.
See, I can make false generalizations as well. To bad that you actually try to claim yours as true.
The only money I have given to people that won't support homosexuality, is money I have given to the Churches I attend that follow the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles and Disciples.
Only GLBT's, liberals and progressives, atheists and Humanists see that as intolerance and hate or whatever neologism they have made up today to attack Christians.
Sorry but most don't. You keep claiming that but there are several examples of gays here on CF that, again, don't fit this stereotype you keep trying to create.
harlots are the embodiment of promiscuity and perversion. Ezekiel will never support the gay agenda.
Again, what is the gay agenda? The only agenda that seems to be common to all gays is that they want equal rights under the law.
The two are the exact same thing. "All the men of Sodom" gathering around Lot's house were more than likely not all gay.
Not this canard again.
So, if all these men were homosexual, why did Lot offer up his daughters? Why is it that Lot's daughters were pledged to men of Sodom if they were all homosexual? And these fiances were not righteous men, rather when
told they needed to leave the city they scoffed at Lot as well -- they were part of that crowd of men outside.
Not to mention, the story that is equivalent to Sodom that all those that claim it was homosexuality ignore;
Judges 19. The difference here is that, instead of angels it happened to a Levite, instead of a Pagan nation it occurs in Israel, instead of daughters being offered it was the Levite's (the strangers) concubine, and that because it was the Levite's concubine rather than someone familiar to them they raped her all night long until dawn when she died. The fact is, what the men were doing was not lust or sexual desire, it was inhospitality. It was to show that strangers were not welcome and to harm him -- exactly the same motivations as in Sodom and which are documented in history outside of the Bible as well.
Lascivious licentiousness is one category. Yet, I have yet to see an adultery pride parade.
Yet I've seen Christian churches, even Fundamentalist churches, have special events for "adult singles", which typically are all divorced people.
Promiscuity Pride parades are exclusive to GLBT culture. Why hasn't your town run these inappropriate content shops out? Too many liberals on the city council? Or too many money loving Republicans?
Good question and one I don't have an answer for. Though it could be that they are all too worried about stopping gays from becoming couples -- which seems odd that they would promote promiscuity by trying to prevent gays from staying together as couples (an amendment has been passed that prevents gay couples from having anything similar to marriage).
No, no more private that gay pride -- both are events that are put on by private organizations and are open to the public (though tickets may be required).
But, since you want another example, how about a nice outdoor heterosexual wedding ceremony? That is nothing more than a heterosexual pride parade. The father takes the daughter down the aisle -- pride in his sexual prowess in producing that daughter. The man and wife giving vows to each other, with the entire audience knowing they are pledging sex and fidelity in sex to each other. And guests even bring gifts to mark the event. Marriage ceremonies as they are currently known are heterosexual pride events. And this isn't an attack on Christianity or marriage, in fact there is no marriage ceremony defined in the Bible.
I have never once posted that Gays cannot be in any Church I attend. They just cannot lead anyone or teach anyone.
Nor did I claim that you did. Rather, I was just showing that the New Testament doesn't call you to separate the wheat from the tares -- that is the Lord's job. Your only responsibility is in your own church, and I've not criticized you or your church for your church's position on gays.
Ten bucks says they wouldn't have sued a Muslim couple. We Christians know what LGBT's are doing. They are coming at the Church one law and one incident at a time.
And I think you are wrong, though from what I have seen the Muslim wouldn't have refused. They recognize that performing business services for people they think are infidels is not giving approval; otherwise I think we'd be having much worse oil problems here in the US.
I believe this gay couple just wanted pictures taken at their wedding and were disturbed that a photographer felt his business was above the law.
Sex acts are not a minority classification.
I'll agree here. Rather, it is sexual orientation that is a minority classification. Whether or not people have sex is irrelevant, they deserve equal rights under the law regardless. Just like other "sinners" are given equal rights, specifically those that violate what Christ called the First and Great Commandment.
This is where the satanic is becoming commonplace.
Sorry, there is no scripture that says people sin merely by being attracted to a person of the same sex.
Laws aimed at doing exactly what these homosexuals did. It's called the gay agenda for a reason.
What? I point out that these laws were created to prevent a form of segregation that was occurring in the South. So, how are the laws aimed at some nebulous "gay agenda"? There was no push among gays for equal rights at the time these laws were drafted; therefore, your claim is found to be completely false again.
Back to the satanic. A sin repented of is no longer a sin. It doesn't exist anymore. I am confident of the Apostolic witness.
I'm glad you are confident. I think, should you be correct, that you will be in for a rude awakening at Judgment Day. Your next comment is a good example of why:
I belittle you because you don't scare me.
Actually, you don't belittle me, though you do try. I try not to belittle you, though I don't claim to be perfect. While I disagree with you and attempt to show you where you are wrong I don't try to upset you or call you names. So tell me, based on the Golden Rule and Christ's comments about loving your neighbor, which of us appears to be more Christ-like?
I see you for what you are and I am not afraid. You are the one that has no scriptural support for your positions. There is no such thing as gay promoting statements anywhere in the Bible. Remember?
You say that like I should care. I'm not the one trying to prove an agenda based on the Bible. I've told you before, I don't care. I merely point out where you make obvious mistakes that go against what the Bible clearly states.
It is not a caricature at all. You described a gay pride parade.
No, I didn't. I may have described this one particular street fair in San Francisco but that is an exception (and not a Pride event) -- just as Mardi Gras and Spring Break and inappropriate content pride are exceptions in the heterosexual community.
You described the typical gay bar.
Sure, just as I also described the typical singles bar. Again, you completely ignore that this is not exclusive to gays.
You described a typical public bathroom scene gay style.
And a typical heterosexual bathroom sex scene.
You also NEVER hear EVEN a "gay Christian" speak against the ubiquitous erotica and promiscuity that is gay life.
I definitely have. Perhaps you need to go to churches that have gay members.
"Gay Pride."
That is your defining statement. Not mine nor the Church.
Not my defining statement, nor the defining statement of gays. Just as "Black Pride" was not the defining statement of Blacks when they had their Pride celebrations. Rather, it is an attempt to defuse the label so that people can see that gays are not simply defined by "homosexual" as you keep trying to do, just as Blacks were trying to show skin color was not their defining feature.
And it never will be. Schism is the only thing that Gay Pride will accomplish in the Church, even the liberal Anglican Church. The Gay Agenda of course.
Of course, the same could be said of homophobia. And, honestly, in that way it is no different than slavery divided churches back 160 years ago. And again, please provide evidence of the gay agenda and how it is supported by a majority of homosexuals.
