God's plan for the Gay Agenda

[Windozer]

It is precisely posts like the one above that attempt obstruct the reception of the Messianic deliverance.

 

[Kefka]

Hmm, it blows me away to see that christians would defend this.

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."


Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

You can argue that fornicators are not condemned as harshly, but guess what?! Fornicators don't have a "Fornication Pride parade." There is no living complexes built solely for fornicators, whether you believe it or not... homosexuality is trying to become something that is normal, and we as christians are obligated to fight against it. And furthermore, not only is it stated that homosexuality is a sin... but an ABOMINATION! How can you get any clearer than that, why would you give this abomination a foot in the door by defending it?

The proper way for a homosexual to go about this would be to repent, and never do it again. It's not something that you can't be saved from, but being gay... as with any other sin, takes you farther from God. And if you can't understand that it's wrong, even though it's stated to be an abomination... you are ignorant. That's called choosing the way of the world over God's way... and that's obviously not good. I don't think you are born gay. I've heard the term "sexual orientation" thrown around alot, orientation means "the direction in which thoughts or tendancies lie," well... I tend to be a jerk, I wasn't born that way. I've though sinful thoughts, I wasn't born that way though.

 

[Drew]

You can argue that fornicators are not condemned as harshly, but guess what?! Fornicators don't have a "Fornication Pride parade." There is no living complexes built solely for fornicators, whether you believe it or not... homosexuality is trying to become something that is normal, and we as christians are obligated to fight against it. And furthermore, not only is it stated that homosexuality is a sin... but an ABOMINATION! How can you get any clearer than that, why would you give this abomination a foot in the door by defending it?

I do not wish to speak for SputnikBoy, but I think that one thing that bothers him is the particularly strong emphasis that is put on this sin above others. And I agree with him. For myself, my understanding of the Scriptures leads me to conclude that homosexual behaviour (as distinguished from homosexual inclination) is indeed sinful. There are also extra-Biblical reasons that might be used to make a a case that homosexual behaviour might not be in the best interests of those who participate in it.

Having said this, I do think that this sin is singled out for special attack - and this is not warranted. I think the main reason for this treatment is that condemnation of this sin is easy and "low risk". The 90 or 95 or 99 percent of us that are not tempted by homosexual thoughts can safely point out this sin in others since it does not tempt us. However, I think that there is hypocrisy here since we hardly ever talk about sins that are indeed pervasive in the Christian world and have a much more detrimental impact on society than homosexual behaviour. Two examples: over-eating (as manifested by obsesity) and materialism.

 

[Kefka]

In some senses I agree with you, but the difference is that over-eating is considered bad for you, and therefore wrong, among the general population. Materialism is also considered wrong, and is taught by chrisitians and non-christians alike to be wrong. But people are trying to make homosexuality a normal thing. I live in Canada, where the definition of marriage was just changed to allow gay marriages, without a vote. I know that when I have kids (or if I have kids) I would not want to send them into a world that teaches that homosexuality is normal. I realize that 'sex with anything that moves' is taught to be normal also, but you can't really fight against other people having sex... it's a private matter, it's still wrong though. But when I was still going to high school, I regularly saw to guys kiss... or two girls kiss. I wasn't even christian then, but it did not sit well with me. And I wouldn't want a child of mine to witness that every day, sure... I could homeschool him/her... or send them to a private school, but I shouldn't have to.

Also, for the most part christians don't agree with homosexuality. However, in my church the church constitution had to be changed. Why? Because otherwise a gay couple could come into our church, and demand to be married, should the pastor refuse... jail time. And even now, the couple could argue that the constitution of the church has no grounds on the meaning of marriage. Now, when it affects people THAT drastically... when you don't agree with something yet you can't stand up to it... does it still seem like a personal sin? No, it affects us all... and maybe there is a target on it right now, but that's because the issue has grown substantially over 2000 years.

 

[Drew]

In some senses I agree with you, but the difference is that over-eating is considered bad for you, and therefore wrong, among the general population. Materialism is also considered wrong, and is taught by chrisitians and non-christians alike to be wrong. But people are trying to make homosexuality a normal thing.

Greetings my fellow Canadian:

My point is that Christians do not consider over-eating or materialism to be sin (at least not in N. America). Perhaps there is the occasional statement to this effect. But the reality is that we Christians lustily embrace materialism and gluttony. We just all kind of agree not to rock the boat.

 

[antitox]

I do not wish to speak for SputnikBoy, but I think that one thing that bothers him is the particularly strong emphasis that is put on this sin above others.

If the liberals do not wish for us Christians to make an issue of gay practices, then how bout not infiltrating the educational system? How bout stopping the justification of this lifestyle? How bout stop trying to make gay marriage an approved union? Stop the gay lobbying? Stop the gay books for children? Stop the gay pride parades?

This is the reason, and we have every right to challenge it.

Stop putting it in our face and in our system when it's wrong. We have enough trouble with heterosexual sin as it is all over the blasted TV, we don't need the dregs thrown in. We don't harass them, but they want to flaunt it out in the open.

You want us to stop complaining? Stop pushing the gay agenda.

 

[Kefka]

Greetings my fellow Canadian:

My point is that Christians do not consider over-eating or materialism to be sin (at least not in N. America). Perhaps there is the occasional statement to this effect. But the reality is that we Christians lustily embrace materialism and gluttony. We just all kind of agree not to rock the boat.[/quote]

I must disagree, in my church it is taught that materialism and gluttony are a sin. 99% of the christian population still engage in materialism and gluttony, we aren't perfect. I agree completely with antitox, I think homosexuality is wrong... but I'm not going to preach to them about it. If a person wants to be gay, that's their decision... it's when they try to make it known, when they have acts of publicity (such as gay pride parade, we don't have straight pride parade.) When our brothers, sisters and children are forced to watch things that they don't agree with, because that particular group feels the need to force their decision down our throats... that's when we need to realize that this isn't a personal decision any more.

Materialism and gluttony are sins, but how often are they not personal choices that usually only affect one person? Changing the definition of marriage is something that affects EVERYONE.

 

[Drew]

I do not wish to speak for SputnikBoy, but I think that one thing that bothers him is the particularly strong emphasis that is put on this sin above others.

If the liberals do not wish for us Christians to make an issue of gay practices, then how bout not infiltrating the educational system? How bout stopping the justification of this lifestyle? How bout stop trying to make gay marriage an approved union? Stop the gay lobbying? Stop the gay books for children? Stop the gay pride parades?

This is the reason, and we have every right to challenge it.

Stop putting it in our face and in our system when it's wrong. We have enough trouble with heterosexual sin as it is all over the blasted TV, we don't need the dregs thrown in. We don't harass them, but they want to flaunt it out in the open.

You want us to stop complaining? Stop pushing the gay agenda.

Please indicate any post in which I supported, explicilty or otherwise, the gay agenda.

Your search will, of course, come up empty.

You have an interesting capabilty to engage in a subtle kind of strawman style of debate. After reading your post, an unsophisticated reader would come to the conclusion that I support the gay agenda. I must admit you do this well. You quote my view on the special emphasis given to homosexual sin and respond with an impassioned epistle about how the gay agenda is being foisted upon us - two different subjects altogether.

And I share some of your concerns. But these concerns are not really a response to my quote.

 

[Drew]

Materialism and gluttony are sins, but how often are they not personal choices that usually only affect one person? Changing the definition of marriage is something that affects EVERYONE.

Surely ye jest....

When someone overeats and becomes obese, their immediate familty is affected (through the possibility of illness and early death). The costs to our health care system are significant.

When we hold onto our wealth, millions needlessly die for the lack of the basics.

As the TV commercial says, "we are all connected".

However, I do agree with you about the parades, and the marriage thing, etc.

 

[antitox]

Please indicate any post in which I supported, explicilty or otherwise, the gay agenda.

Your search will, of course, come up empty.

You have an interesting capabilty to engage in a subtle kind of strawman style of debate. After reading your post, an unsophisticated reader would come to the conclusion that I support the gay agenda. I must admit you do this well. You quote my view on the special emphasis given to homosexual sin and respond with an impassioned epistle about how the gay agenda is being foisted upon us - two different subjects altogether.

And I share some of your concerns. But these concerns are not really a response to my quote.

If you share some of our concerns, then stop saying that we are unjustly focusing on this sin when it is common knowledge that it is in response to all the front-line push in political lobbying, media blitz, and social thrust of the gay lifestyle to gain full acceptance as legitimate.

It certainly appears you are speaking on their behalf:

Drew wrote:
I do not wish to speak for SputnikBoy, but I think that one thing that bothers him is the particularly strong emphasis that is put on this sin above others.

Now that was YOUR thought, and that you were speaking on what you perceive to be a legitimate concern of his.

As long as you defend the gay position from the response of Christians as some accusatory overemphasis, you are but another implication of it's claim to legitimacy.

 

[Windozer]

Now that was YOUR thought, and that you were speaking on what you perceive to be a legitimate concern of his.

Well I too see it the same way Drew sees it. What I find hard to understand is exactly what is it you hope to accomplish by taking your stand against it?

It looks like insanity to me... Repeating the same thing (behavior) over, and over, again and on and on continuing to get negative results (changing no ones mind) yet expecting positive results.

 

[Kefka]

As long as you defend the gay position from the response of Christians as some accusatory overemphasis, you are but another implication of it's claim to legitimacy.

Technically he wasn't defending the gay position there, but rather stating his opinion that it is unfairly treated as a worse offense than other sins.

And Drew, you're right that it affects immediate families... but we are responsible for our loved ones and ourselves, we can't be responsible for anyone else. We cannot speak out against obesity, if someone gains alot of weight... how will it look if you point the finger and say "that's wrong!" If you have a family member suffering from obesity, you have the right to say something because it can affect you... but a fat guy in... New York doesn't affect me, if I say something against his obesity I will just anger him. A gay pride parade in New Orleans DOES affect me, because I turn on the TV and there it is. If you agree about the parades and the marriage thing, then we are pretty much on the same page... most christians aren't speaking out against gay people. We speak out against the sin, and publicising it, pushing it in our faces.

The homosexuals speak of freedom, they are free to be gay. We should be free as well, I shouldn't turn on the TV and see to gay men dressed as Nuns... making a mockery of everything I believe in... when I can't be free in my beliefs, how is that freedom? My pastor isn't free to be christian if he's thrown in jail for following his beliefs, having said that... when he first started in his beliefs he wasn't breaking any laws.

 

[antitox]

Now that was YOUR thought, and that you were speaking on what you perceive to be a legitimate concern of his.

Well I too see it the same way Drew sees it. What I find hard to understand is exactly what is it you hope to accomplish by taking your stand against it?

It looks like insanity to me... Repeating the same thing over, and over, again and on and on continuing to get negative results (changing no ones mind) yet expecting positive ones.

And what is your hope of defending it?

This is a Christian board, not a political forum for sin-promotion or sin-defense/acceptance. We have heard all the arguments and all the compassion-based elements of it. But when this lifestyle is defended, we step in to defend morality, then you call it overemphasis of this particular sin.

Alot of people are upset by this and want to voice their objection to the spread of this lifestyle. When an OP does so, you get heartburn and argue it. Then I respond, then you claim foul. It's like this on every thread of this type. :-?

 

[Kefka]

Now that was YOUR thought, and that you were speaking on what you perceive to be a legitimate concern of his.

Well I too see it the same way Drew sees it. What I find hard to understand is exactly what is it you hope to accomplish by taking your stand against it?

It looks like insanity to me... Repeating the same thing (behavior) over, and over, again and on and on continuing to get negative results (changing no ones mind) yet expecting positive results.

So, what you're saying is if we've stated our opinion on this topic before... and the issue comes up again we have no right to restate our opinion? By that logic, your defense of the subject is now useless because I've seen it before. A lie repeated is still a lie, a truth is still a truth and I'll repeat it everyday for the rest of my life if I have to. Are you expecting to get positive results by stating the same thing over and over?

 

[Drew]

Please indicate any post in which I supported, explicilty or otherwise, the gay agenda.

Your search will, of course, come up empty.

You have an interesting capabilty to engage in a subtle kind of strawman style of debate. After reading your post, an unsophisticated reader would come to the conclusion that I support the gay agenda. I must admit you do this well. You quote my view on the special emphasis given to homosexual sin and respond with an impassioned epistle about how the gay agenda is being foisted upon us - two different subjects altogether.

And I share some of your concerns. But these concerns are not really a response to my quote.

If you share some of our concerns, then stop saying that we are unjustly focusing on this sin when it is common knowledge that it is in response to all the front-line push in political lobbying, media blitz, and social thrust of the gay lifestyle to gain full acceptance as legitimate. As long as you defend the gay position from the response of Christians to this blitz, you are but another implication of it's claim to legitimacy.

Just as you claim "common knowledge" that the Christian outcry is a response to the gay agenda, I claim that it is "common knowledge" that homosexuals were "singled out", long before the gay rights movement got going (I am old enough to know this). Also, one needs to be aware of the notable absence of a similar outcry against materialism and over-eating. If we were consistent, there would be a Christian outcry against these things too.

I have only ever claimed that we are inconsistent - I have never said that the gay agenda should not be fought. Sure, you very subtly and skillfully imply that I support the gay agenda. When called on this, you make a statement like "As long as you defend the gay position from the response of Christians to this blitz, you are but another implication of it's claim to legitimacy", which misrepresents my position and creates a strawman.

I have complained about inconsistency. You unjustifiably conclude that I am defending the gay agenda, if only indirectly. What you fail to account for is the fact that everything I have said is also consistent with the following position:

"The gay agenda needs to be fought and we also need to be consistent - to speak out against over-eating and materialism"

The above is my actual position (perhaps requiring a clarification of what is meant by the "gay agenda"). You seem to presume that my position involves not speaking out against the gay agenda. I have said nothing like this.

I do not know who you are arguing with, but it is certainly not me.

 

[Kefka]

Drew, it would seem that we are inconsistent... but I'm curious, how would you go about speaking out against gluttony?

 

[Windozer]

Now that was YOUR thought, and that you were speaking on what you perceive to be a legitimate concern of his.

Well I too see it the same way Drew sees it. What I find hard to understand is exactly what is it you hope to accomplish by taking your stand against it?

It looks like insanity to me... Repeating the same thing (behavior) over, and over, again and on and on continuing to get negative results (changing no ones mind) yet expecting positive results.

So, what you're saying is if we've stated our opinion on this topic before... and the issue comes up again we have no right to restate our opinion? By that logic, your defense of the subject is now useless because I've seen it before. A lie repeated is still a lie, a truth is still a truth and I'll repeat it everyday for the rest of my life if I have to. Are you expecting to get positive results by stating the same thing over and over?

No that is not what I am saying. Just take a look at this thread and see how many times the same thing has been repeated over and over again.

What I am saying is we got what you were saying the first time, and there are some of us who do not agree with you, and never will. Yet you continue to repeat something that has and will not work for you.

 

[Kefka]

Precisely, however when someone addresses what has already been said... it is proper to reply, and it is only logical that in that reply my views will not have changed drastically from the last post. Remember, it takes more than one person to have a discussion, no? Which means that you/people with your views are guilty as well. The point is, this topic is about the gay agenda... you will make your views known, as you have done a few times... and so will we.

 

[antitox]

Just as you claim "common knowledge" that the Christian outcry is a response to the gay agenda, I claim that it is "common knowledge" that homosexuals were "singled out", long before the gay rights movement got going (I am old enough to know this). Also, one needs to be aware of the notable absence of a similar outcry against materialism and over-eating. If we were consistent, there would be a Christian outcry against these things too.

This isn't the old days. This is now. This is about what WE are talking about GOING ON NOW. You're merely reaching for straws with this answer.

I have only ever claimed that we are inconsistent - I have never said that the gay agenda should not be fought. Sure, you very subtly and skillfully imply that I support the gay agenda. When called on this, you make a statement like "As long as you defend the gay position from the response of Christians to this blitz, you are but another implication of it's claim to legitimacy", which misrepresents my position and creates a strawman.

Well, man, who are you speaking for, then? What side of this are you on? Do you somehow see a neutral area in this? At least be clear about it.

I have complained about inconsistency. You unjustifiably conclude that I am defending the gay agenda, if only indirectly. What you fail to account for is the fact that everything I have said is also consistent with the following position:

"The gay agenda needs to be fought and we also need to be consistent - to speak out against over-eating and materialism"

Yes, just don't downplay the issue at hand when bringing in any other comparisons in the mix.

The above is my actual position (perhaps requiring a clarification of what is meant by the "gay agenda"). You seem to presume that my position involves not speaking out against the gay agenda. I have said nothing like this.

Looked at though you defended Sput in the same vein.

 

[Drew]

Just as you claim "common knowledge" that the Christian outcry is a response to the gay agenda, I claim that it is "common knowledge" that homosexuals were "singled out", long before the gay rights movement got going (I am old enough to know this). Also, one needs to be aware of the notable absence of a similar outcry against materialism and over-eating. If we were consistent, there would be a Christian outcry against these things too.

This isn't the old days. This is now. This is about what WE are talking about GOING ON NOW. You're merely reaching for straws with this answer.

I am really mystified that you (or anyone) would see this as any kind of legitimate counterargument.

In order for your "this isn't the old days" argument to work, you need to show that the same motivation to single out homosexuals is not present today as was present then. This would be a very challenging task, but it is a task you need to do unless you are prepared to challenge my claim about how things were in the old days.

I have only ever claimed that we are inconsistent - I have never said that the gay agenda should not be fought. Sure, you very subtly and skillfully imply that I support the gay agenda. When called on this, you make a statement like "As long as you defend the gay position from the response of Christians to this blitz, you are but another implication of it's claim to legitimacy", which misrepresents my position and creates a strawman.

Well, man, who are you speaking for, then? What side of this are you on? Do you somehow see a neutral area in this? At least be clear about it.

Here your error is clear for all to see: In my last post I stated as follows:

"The gay agenda needs to be fought and we also need to be consistent - to speak out against over-eating and materialism.

The above is my actual position "

This is a clear and unambiguous statement.