It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I Am a Straight, Married Christian Male in Support of Gay Marriage

page: 46
60
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Partisanity

Originally posted by 547000

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by 547000
Christianity is incompatible with homosexuality.


In YOUR opinion. The plethora of gay Christians would disagree with you.
But you're entitled to have your opinion. I just think you should stop worrying about OTHER people's relationship with God and let God handle it.
He really doesn't need you and your judgments.

Your form of Christianity I can do without.


Having an orthodox opinion is not judgement. And what about what is said about warning others of destruction? That requires judgement of some kind by your standards. Are we supposed to just blindly accept apostasy?


Not adhering to strict nonsense that directly goes against Jesus' teachings for the purpose of pointing out every splinter that you see in everyone else's eye is NOT apostasy.

Abandoning Jesus' teachings to preach against how evil everyone but you is... and then acting as if your equalized sexual sins don't exist... that could be seen as apostasy.


I don't think you understood the context of "judge not". The church should not sin against God because God will punish the church. Homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity. You would have to go through many hoops to say it can be blessed by God. If you repent you can be forgiven, which is why people who sin in the past can be forgiven (repentance means turning away from sin), but homosexuals marrying is not repentance. Unless the homosexual is inactive they are not repenting. Marrying them IN CHURCH is contradictory to what we know of scripture. Fornicators can possibly repent, but homosexuals who are active are not.

But continue on with this post-modern nonsense. You are merely quoting the scriptures to justify your philosophy and not taking it in fully. It was only when I started taking scriptures seriously I became orthodox. You have to ignore huge parts of it to be a liberal christian.




posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Maybe my explanation it unclear, which is why it is so hard for some to understand so I'll try another way.

A person who has fornicated and asks to be married in NOT NECESSARILY saying "Father, please bless my fornication" but a homosexual couple who want to be married is NECESSARILY saying "Father, please bless our homosexuality." Until you understand the distinction between the two, and that the New Testament is clear on the matter that homosexuality is wrong, you will not understand what I am saying. A fornicator can repent, but an active homosexual is not repenting. Only an inactive one can. And if homosexual wants to marry one of his same gender, he is active.Is it more clear now?
edit on 29-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
But continue on with this post-modern nonsense. You are merely quoting the scriptures to justify your philosophy and not taking it in fully. It was only when I started taking scriptures seriously I became orthodox. You have to ignore huge parts of it to be a liberal christian.


Give up, I haven't ignored anything. All I have done is suggest that you likely aren't perfect in your marriage either and add things from the scripture. Whether or not you want to admit your own sins on your little online tirade is up to you, but it's likely that you sin constantly while having sex with your wife, seeing as you aren't married to her (provided she was not a virgin when your were "married"), God does not recognize such marriages, therefore every sex act within the fake marriage is fornication. Fornication sanctioned by the Church.

You're the one that is consistently and conveniently ignoring this scripture because it doesn't praise you in all that you do.

And bite your tongue, I'm willing to bet my left foot that I have far more religious education than you. You don't even know what a Pharisee is; you're proud of being one in your blissful religious ignorance. Catholic Orthodoxy is closer to Judaism than Christianity, by the way.
edit on 29-9-2011 by Partisanity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Partisanity
 


I'm unmarried. I have sinned but I try to repent. I am celibate and haven't had sex. You don't seem to grasp that part of the gospel is preaching repentance. What sins I have done, I have repented, and what sins I will do I will repent for. It's not easy, but it is part of the gospel. If repentance will not bring forgiveness, then everybody is doomed.
edit on 29-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Partisanity
 


I'm unmarried. I have sinned but I try to repent. I am celibate and haven't had sex.


Gee I wonder why that is.


You don't seem to grasp that part of the gospel is preaching repentance. What sins I have done, I have repented, and what sins I will do I will repent for. It's not easy, but it is part of the gospel.
edit on 29-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)


So you admit then that those in marriages without virgin wives are "illegitimate marriages" to the same extent as homosexual marriages?


edit on 29-9-2011 by Partisanity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   
DP
edit on 29-9-2011 by Partisanity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   


So you admit then that those in marriages without virgin wives are "illegitimate marriages" to the same extent as homosexual marriages?


If both the homosexuals and the fornicators repent, they might be. But if they both continue with their sins, I don't think either will be forgiven by God.

This means the homosexuals will have to stop having sex, something very unlikely.
edit on 29-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 



You don't seem to grasp that part of the gospel is preaching repentance. What sins I have done, I have repented, and what sins I will do I will repent for. It's not easy, but it is part of the gospel.
edit on 29-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)


I have to address this again, you do realize that you are saying "I, I, I" and not "They, you, everyone but me".

The Catholic Church has deemed birth control okay now, regardless of how much they demonized it before; the Bible says that no sex acts should be performed without procreation as the premise. So therefore, the Catholic Church is already disobeying the Bible for the sake of humanity, does that make them godless?



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Partisanity
 


If I say "I, I, I," it's because I have to seek repentance for my own sins. I never said everyone was a sinner but me; that's just a smear others have claimed to make me look bad.

No, Peter's church is the rock. Even if I may disagree with some teachings, I have to accept them.

edit on 29-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by yes4141
reply to post by spw184
 


Why was I (I think you meant me) grouped with "haters and religious gaybashers"? All through this thread I've been stating exactly the opposite of those things.

Sorry I thought you where one of the people constantly quotingn the bible and saying you where gonna burn in hell... I must be mistaken



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Partisanity
 


If I say "I, I, I," it's because I have to seek repentance for my own sins. I never said everyone was a sinner but me; that's just a smear others have claimed to make me look bad.

No, Peter's church is the rock. Even if I may disagree with some teachings, I have to accept them.

edit on 29-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)


Looolz my middle name is peter
OFFTOPIC



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

By the poster's logic, the only reason to be married is to breed... Some people's minds are narrower than the road to heaven, I tell ya!


No my dear. Married people who do not have sex are a blessing too: the church has always blessed abstinence. BUT the only reason for the "tax breaks" that society grants to married people are for breeding, and producing future citizens of the state. God doesn't grant any tax breaks. So, there are two different things being considered here: religious blessings and civil blessings. The gay couple want the "tax breaks" that are intended for progeny producers. THE GAY COUPLE WANT SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.




edit on 29-9-2011 by DRAZIW because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

By the poster's logic, the only reason to be married is to breed... Some people's minds are narrower than the road to heaven, I tell ya!


No my dear. Married people who do not have sex are a blessing too: the church has always blessed abstinence. BUT the only reason for the "tax breaks" that society grants to married people are for breeding, and producing future citizens of the state. God doesn't grant any tax breaks. So, there are two different things being considered here: religious blessings and civil blessings. The gay couple want the "tax breaks" that are intended for progeny producers. THE GAY COUPLE WANT SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.




edit on 29-9-2011 by DRAZIW because: (no reason given)


You mean like straight married couples who do not reproduce? What's good for the goose....



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
reply to post by spw184
 


Yes its an illness, they cant be feeling well. Its not normal, god made man and woman and said go forth and multiply. Replenish the earth. How can you replenish the earth by being a gay?


They can't.



Jesus said, "The kingdom of the father is like a man who had good seed. His enemy came by night and sowed weeds among the good seed. The man did not allow them to pull up the weeds; he said to them, 'I am afraid that you will go intending to pull up the weeds and pull up the wheat along with them.' For on the day of the harvest the weeds will be plainly visible, and they will be pulled up and burned." -- The Gospel of Thomas #57

Source: www.gnosis.org...

also more elaborately declared in:

Matthew 13:24-30 and Matthew 13:36-43



It's pretty clear that the scriptures acknowledge that there are "two types" of mankind planted on earth. One is referred to as the "wheat" and the other the "weeds". The "weeds" are growing among the "wheat". It's hard to separate them while they are growing. But there comes a time when it's clear who the "wheat" are and who the "weeds" are, and at that time the "weeds" are pulled up and burned.

The "wheat" are planted by God, and his enemy [the devil] planted the "weeds" among them.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syphon

You mean like straight married couples who do not reproduce? What's good for the goose....


Right. Exactly. There are selfish straight people too. Gay people aren't the only sinners. However, straight people can repent, change their ways, and fulfill their obligations to society, thus justifying the tax breaks. But, gay people cannot produce regardless. Society simply didn't want to put pressure on married people with regard to timing and quantity of kids they are expected to produce. Gay people are taking advantage of this lenient treatment of straight couple marriage to claim they too deserve the tax breaks.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by spw184
[
LMFAO DO YOU GUYS SEE THIS???

So you say that in a couple where the guy has been nutered, they can still have a baby?


Yes. God can do it.



So you say when a woman has her tubes tied/ an egg extraction that she can still have a baby?


Yes. God can do it.



So you say that a man who is sterile because of radiation can still have a baby?


Yes. God can do it.



So you say that a woman who is long past menopause can still have a baby?


Yes. God has done it before.



So you say that a couple who does not have sex can still have a baby?


Yes. God has done it before. [ e.g. Jesus born of a virgin: Joseph and Mary did not have sex. ]

Man can also do this today using science. So, not only God but man has this power now.



You see, a baby is not made when a woman and a man love each other very much, and the delivery man is not a stork.


Huh?



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by Syphon

You mean like straight married couples who do not reproduce? What's good for the goose....


Right. Exactly. There are selfish straight people too. Gay people aren't the only sinners. However, straight people can repent, change their ways, and fulfill their obligations to society, thus justifying the tax breaks. But, gay people cannot produce regardless. Society simply didn't want to put pressure on married people with regard to timing and quantity of kids they are expected to produce. Gay people are taking advantage of this lenient treatment of straight couple marriage to claim they too deserve the tax breaks.


So wait. Now straight married couples who enjoy government tax breaks are selfish sinners? They can repent and change their ways? How so? By adopting? Surrogate? The same methods gay married couples would use? I don't think you really thought your arguement out. You just want to argue against gay marriage. Why not just say you're against it because the bible told you so and leave it at that. It's a valid, if narrow point of view.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syphon
You just want to argue against gay marriage. Why not just say you're against it because the bible told you so and leave it at that. It's a valid, if narrow point of view.



I'm not against Gay Unions. Just against confusing the language by expanding the meaning of the word "marriage".

Why aren't gays happy with "Gay Union". It's cool. It's modern. It's new. It's fashion. Why use an old prejudiced laden term like "marry" to unite the liberated novo elite gay and lesbian fashion conscious crowd?

What do gays have against heterosexuals, that they should want to force them to change the millennial old established meanings of their courting rituals? And confuse them with their own!



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by spw184
 


I have never said anyone will burn in hell ever. I don't believe in it, christianity or any other religion in any way whatsoever. I was arguing about christianity and therefore the bible. I had only quoted DRAZIW's posts which contained bible verses- I'm not quite sure how you got that impression.

reply to post by DRAZIW
 




I'm not against Gay Unions.

Please could you explain why? Is it because you think god will handle the punishment not you? You have said all through this thread that it is sinful- are you therefore advocating sinfulness? Would it not be wrong to advocate murder? Why then is this different?



Yes. God can do it.


Yes he can, according to a text. But if that text is even a tiny bit untrustworthy then it is far more likely he cannot.

Presumably these things need to be miracles performed by God to let these types of couples have a child... Does that mean that all couples who do not get this miracle should be ashamed for not being pious enough? Or simply upset because God didn't bother? Why even bother with a couple? Can a single man give birth to a child if god wants it? Maybe not even a human, can a celibate snail have a human child of god wishes it? A tree? A particle? Jupiter? A black hole?
edit on 29-9-2011 by yes4141 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-9-2011 by yes4141 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by yes4141



I'm not against Gay Unions.

Please could you explain why? Is it because you think god will handle the punishment not you? You have said all through this thread that it is sinful- are you therefore advocating sinfulness? Would it not be wrong to advocate murder? Why then is this different?


Yes, God will handle any punishment, not me. My responsibility is to report on my understanding of the law, not to enforce it. Jesus never punished anyone, he just told them what was wrong and what was right, and left it up to the FATHER in heaven to direct the listener according to HIS will. If Jesus wasn't going to punish, why would I? I have no greater authority than him. Although people did "stone" sinners back in the old days, Jesus brought in a more righteous practice of "forgiving" and "warning" instead.



For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. -- Matthew 5:20 KJV



Not to punish, is not the same thing as "advocating the sinful practice".

However, because "silence is approval", if you see something wrong, it's your duty to say so. Let your light shine...etc..etc..so that all who walk this way can see the light.

When I say I'm "not against gay unions", specifically, I'm saying that I'm for the separation of good from evil. God has separated the good into the good camp, and the evil into the evil camp, and I'm not against continuing that separation.

It is the confusion of good and evil, that I am against. Calling evil "good", or good "evil", mixing and blending good with evil, by using the same terms and words to identify them, these are all tricks of the devil to get men to fall into even more sin.

But, once people want to use different words for different practices, I support that convention.

Once we accept "Gay unions" and "Marriage" being distinct, we can then speak of "Gay Union" being cursed, and "Marriage" being blessed.

But if we use "Marriage" for both gay and straight union, then the term "Marry" could mean curse or bless, so it's confusion.

There would be a lot of gay couples walking about on earth believing they have been "blessed" by *marriage*, whereas, in fact, they would be cursed.

The devil tricked them.

But, those who understand the word, must unravel the devil's tricks to help those with eyes to then see.
















edit on 29-9-2011 by DRAZIW because: spelling



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join