Defending Gay Christianity

I disagree. It's talking about human men.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

If it was about the angels of Genesis 6, verse 26 makes no sense:

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Adam was androgenous when created having both a male and female nature until divided. So if angels were created androgenous too but gave up their male divine nature to become human then their lust for the female human was unnatural and unseemly,

None of it makes sense without the proper historical and cultural context.

I will stick with the Bible.


Right. A man with a woman.


No it can't.


Men are to marry women.


The child won't know right from wrong.


No there can't. It's an abomination to God.


Christians are to do no harm, but we're also supposed to stand for the truth.
That is my point, you dont know the truth and the few glancing references to homosexuality in the New Testament are not enough to take a dogmatic stance. Based on the golden rule there is no reason for christianity to oppose life-long commitment between two same-sex humans.

If you're a homosexual, it won't be easy, but deliverance is possible.
 
Adam was androgenous when created having both a male and female nature until divided.
The Bible doesn’t say that.
So if angels were created androgenous too
The Bible doesn’t say that.
but gave up their male divine nature to become human then their lust for the female human was unnatural and unseemly,

None of it makes sense without the proper historical and cultural context.
You aren’t looking at it from a proper biblical context.

That is my point, you dont know the truth
I believe what the Bible says about it. Plus, common sense.

and the few glancing references to homosexuality in the New Testament are not enough to take a dogmatic stance.
I believe they are.

Based on the golden rule there is no reason for christianity to oppose life-long commitment between two same-sex humans.
…besides the Bible. Christians are to go by the Bible.
 
The new testament canon gives us precepts by which to regulate our lives based on virtuous living. It does not prescribe exact actions for any possible situation of life, otherwise, we would have ended up with a huge book like the Jewish Talmud filled with obsolete and contradictory explanations. There is no verse where God approves of nuclear energy so in your logic, it must be disapproved. That is how silly your argument is.

Whereas if we were to only apply the Golden Rule to the situation we could see nothing inherently wrong with two same-sex people who want to spend the rest of their lives together. But that would require using your brain rather than searching the Bible for every answer to every situation on earth.

Tell me what virtue two life long committed homosexuals have abandoned. None. And that is what moral Christianity is about, ie., doing what is best for others.

"The new testament canon gives us precepts by which to regulate our lives based on virtuous living." Full stop.


There is nothing virtuous concerning same sex attraction/marriage. Now, find me one verse in all the bible that supports this sodomite lifestyle. I will be waiting.
 
"The new testament canon gives us precepts by which to regulate our lives based on virtuous living." Full stop.


There is nothing virtuous concerning same sex attraction/marriage. Now, find me one verse in all the bible that supports this sodomite lifestyle. I will be waiting.
Waste of time my brother, the texts will only be "...twisted to their own destruction..." 2 Peter 3:16, their plain truths denied, and they won't believe any of these things are taking place. It's 2 Timothy 3:13 on display.
 
Adam was androgenous when created having both a male and female nature until divided.

Um, that's 100% false.
Next you're going to try to tell us that Adam's "pronouns" were "zi" and "zir", right?

After all, the cattle and the serpent have to refer to him "correctly", right?

So if angels were created androgenous too

You have quite the incredibly huge imagination!

but gave up their male divine nature to become human then their lust for the female human was unnatural and unseemly,

<Chuckle>

Let me guess... You got this from 2nd Opinions 3:16?

That is my point, you dont know the truth and the few glancing references to homosexuality in the New Testament are not enough to take a dogmatic stance.

Nice to know that you've rejected the Hebrew Scriptures.
(Yet you use them to try to claim Adam was allegedly "androgenous"?)
Double standards, much?

Based on the golden rule there is no reason for christianity to oppose life-long commitment between two same-sex humans.

You don't understand what "love" is.
I guess you think "love" includes S&M relationships where people physically hurt themselves and each other, all in the name of "LUUUUUUUUVVVVVV"?

God has standards.
God has set those standards.
Rejecting God's standards is NOT "LUUUUVVVV" by any stretch of your corrupted imagination.

Btw, still waiting for a direct quote from that JBP claim you made the other day...
 
The new testament canon gives us precepts by which to regulate our lives based on virtuous living. It does not prescribe exact actions for any possible situation of life, otherwise, we would have ended up with a huge book like the Jewish Talmud filled with obsolete and contradictory explanations. There is no verse where God approves of nuclear energy so in your logic, it must be disapproved. That is how silly your argument is.

Whereas if we were to only apply the Golden Rule to the situation we could see nothing inherently wrong with two same-sex people who want to spend the rest of their lives together. But that would require using your brain rather than searching the Bible for every answer to every situation on earth.

Tell me what virtue two life long committed homosexuals have abandoned. None. And that is what moral Christianity is about, ie., doing what is best for others.
Scripturally speaking, what you are demonstrating is your reprobate mind. But you'll never believe it, this side of the Sun.
 
Adam was androgenous when created having both a male and female nature until divided. So if angels were created androgenous too but gave up their male divine nature to become human then their lust for the female human was unnatural and unseemly,
And here I was sure Vibise would win Stupidest Post Of The Day today.
 
The truth.

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1 Cor 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
IMHO, he is a serpent just being a serpent. Hath God really said...
 
Adam was androgenous when created having both a male and female nature until divided. So if angels were created androgenous too but gave up their male divine nature to become human then their lust for the female human was unnatural and unseemly,

None of it makes sense without the proper historical and cultural context.


That is my point, you dont know the truth and the few glancing references to homosexuality in the New Testament are not enough to take a dogmatic stance. Based on the golden rule there is no reason for christianity to oppose life-long commitment between two same-sex humans.
100% wrong
In Matt 19, Mark 10 we see Jesus affirm God's creation purpose for male and female and man and woman. He refers to Gen 1 and 2.
In Gen 1 God said let us make mankind in our image, male and female He made them.
So regarding your remark Adam was divided. We read in Gen 2 that God created woman from man and IT WAS FOR THIS REASON a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh.
This in itself is sufficient if one loves God and wants to follow Jesus.
However, the epistles liken the union of man and woman to Christ and His church, the bride and bridegroom.

Now there is only ever this countenance for man and woman relations in the Bible and only ever condemnation for same sex acts.
So you are 100% wrong, what you have posted is a lie and opposite to the truth.

1 Cor 6 is only a clobber passage for those who havent been washed, and sanctified.
 
100% wrong
In Matt 19, Mark 10 we see Jesus affirm God's creation purpose for male and female and man and woman. He refers to Gen 1 and 2.
In Gen 1 God said let us make mankind in our image, male and female He made them.
So regarding your remark Adam was divided. We read in Gen 2 that God created woman from man and IT WAS FOR THIS REASON a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh.
This in itself is sufficient if one loves God and wants to follow Jesus.
However, the epistles liken the union of man and woman to Christ and His church, the bride and bridegroom.

Now there is only ever this countenance for man and woman relations in the Bible and only ever condemnation for same sex acts.
So you are 100% wrong, what you have posted is a lie and opposite to the truth.

1 Cor 6 is only a clobber passage for those who havent been washed, and sanctified.
I have already addressed the paucity of Bible verses in their context and purpose for being written. Nobody has rebutted them with evidence or reason. For example, Mattew 19 is about divorce because it begins with a question about divorce: “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” Then you nitwits claim he is talking about homosexuality. The same goes for every verse you mention. The only thing you guys have is ad hominem. Pathetic!

For the record, the topic is homosexuality. I know how hung up you are on transgenderism. Dont confuse the two. Transgenderism is about denying ones biological sex, one’s DNA. Homosexuality is about physical attraction to the same sex. It is about what one is attracted to, not what sex one is claiming to be.

IMO, God does not want to be the judge of what people are attracted to. Big boobs, little boobs, skinny, fat, male, female, …God has better things to judge than what flavor of ice cream people choose. The important question is, are you good, truthful, patient, just, etc? The important thing is how you treat others.
 
Last edited:
I have already addressed the paucity of Bible verses in their context and purpose for being written.
There is no paucity. Despite the affirmation by Jesus of male and female, man and woman in God's image to be united is all we need (Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5.) there are many instances of husband and wife. There are also several verses which specifically condemn same sex relations, so there is no paucity.
Paucity means very little, yet you have nothing to countenance same sex relations
Nobody has rebutted them with evidence or reason. For example, Mattew 19 is about divorce because it begins with a question about divorce: “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?”
Well firstly whilst the question is about divorce, between a man and a woman btw, it doesnt change the answer, and the answer affirms that the union of man and woman is God's image and to be faithful.

Then you nitwits claim he is talking about homosexuality.
The text doesnt say that and neither did I. I pointed out that the text affirms God's purpose for man and woman in faithful union, which means it isnt for same sex relations. If you want to follow Jesus teaching, there you go, although Jesus also says some wont want to or be able to.

The same goes for every verse you mention.
Nope, because Leviticus 19 20, Romans 1, 1 Cor 6-7 and 1 Tim 1 are specifically about same sex acts
The only thing you guys have is ad hominem. Pathetic!
that is because you are lying about what the texts say, and lying is also a sin

For the record, the topic is homosexuality.
ok but that isnt a concept in God's Biblical testimony except in relation to where same sex acts are condemned and exlcuded
I know how hung up you are on transgenderism. Dont confuse the two.
Many gays and lesbians are opposed to transgender ideology
Transgenderism is about denying ones biological sex, one’s DNA. Homosexuality is about physical attraction to the same sex. It is about what one is attracted to, not what sex one is claiming to be.
correct

IMO, God does not want to be the judge of what people are attracted to.
But that is just your opinion, God's Biblical testimony says otherwise

Big boobs, little boobs, skinny, fat, male, female, …God has better things to judge than what flavor of ice cream people choose. The important question is, are you good, truthful, patient, just, etc? The important thing is how you treat others.
The important thing is to first honour God and then to treats others accordingly. The golden rule to love others is predicated on loving God first, and one cant love others by encouraging them in things that God hates and says is a barrier to His Kingdom
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mik
There is no paucity. Despite the affirmation by Jesus of male and female, man and woman in God's image to be united is all we need (Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5.) there are many instances of husband and wife. There are also several verses which specifically condemn same sex relations, so there is no paucity.
Paucity means very little, yet you have nothing to countenance same sex relations
Well firstly whilst the question is about divorce, between a man and a woman btw, it doesnt change the answer, and the answer affirms that the union of man and woman is God's image and to be faithful.

The text doesnt say that and neither did I. I pointed out that the text affirms God's purpose for man and woman in faithful union, which means it isnt for same sex relations. If you want to follow Jesus teaching, there you go, although Jesus also says some wont want to or be able to.
The context and text of Matth. 19 clearly shows Jesus’s attitude towards divorce. Jesus is against divorce because God is against divorce in general. Obviously, a lunatic husband who beats his wife does not deserve a wife. God would not expect anyone to stay in an abusive relationship. Nevertheless, we can conclude from Jesus’ statement that divorce is NOT the expectation of marriage from God’s point of view.

Nowhere is Jesus addressing homosexuality. Nowhere. So your clause beginning with, “which means…” is your personal opinion being read into the Bible. It is your prejudcie. Your bias.


Nope, because Leviticus 19 20, Romans 1, 1 Cor 6-7 and 1 Tim 1 are specifically about same sex acts
that is because you are lying about what the texts say, and lying is also a sin
If you are going to follow the Mosaic Law then you must follow ALL of it, to include animal sacrifice, temple rituals, circumcision, and sabbath. Have you done that? If not, then do not quote me “works of the Law”. You have no idea what you are talking about.

ok but that isnt a concept in God's Biblical testimony except in relation to where same sex acts are condemned and exlcuded
Many gays and lesbians are opposed to transgender ideology
correct

But that is just your opinion, God's Biblical testimony says otherwise

The important thing is to first honour God and then to treats others accordingly. The golden rule to love others is predicated on loving God first, and one cant love others by encouraging them in things that God hates and says is a barrier to His Kingdom
 
The context and text of Matth. 19 clearly shows Jesus’s attitude towards divorce.
And His answer clearly quotes from Genesis 1 and 2 about God's creation purpose for male and female, man and woman.

Obviously, a lunatic husband who beats his wife does not deserve a wife. God would not expect anyone to stay in an abusive relationship.
As we see the marriage, the union of man and woman is likened to the union of Christ and His church the bride and bridegroom.
Christ is the head of the union
2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.
Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her


Obviously an abusive husband is not honouring what God has ordained, and I agree a wife shouldn't have to stay in an abusive relationship.

Nevertheless, we can conclude from Jesus’ statement that divorce is NOT the expectation of marriage from God’s point of view.
just as we can see that marriage is a faithful union between man and woman.

Nowhere is Jesus addressing homosexuality.
And the union of man and woman is the opposite of homosexual relations
So you have NOTHING to support your idea of homosexual as a marriage
So your clause beginning with, “which means…” is your personal opinion being read into the Bible.
Not at all, it means you are denying what the text clearly means, which is your prejudice and bias.

If you are going to follow the Mosaic Law then you must follow ALL of it, to include animal sacrifice, temple rituals, circumcision, and sabbath.
I never said I had to follow the Mosaic law. I seek to follow Jesus teaching, which I have given you. Jesus fulfilled the law and prophets.
If you are saying you need to either follow the law or not follow it, then what did you mean by the 'golden rule'? Did you mean
James 2:8 "If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right." then
Lev 19:18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord
and
Lev 18:22 22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
and you should be following the animal sacrifices etc
Have you done that?

Now lets hear what you have to support you idea about 'gay' christianity.
 
And His answer clearly quotes from Genesis 1 and 2 about God's creation purpose for male and female, man and woman.


As we see the marriage, the union of man and woman is likened to the union of Christ and His church the bride and bridegroom.
Christ is the head of the union
2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.
Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her


Obviously an abusive husband is not honouring what God has ordained, and I agree a wife shouldn't have to stay in an abusive relationship.


just as we can see that marriage is a faithful union between man and woman.


And the union of man and woman is the opposite of homosexual relations

So you have NOTHING to support your idea of homosexual as a marriage

Not at all, it means you are denying what the text clearly means, which is your prejudice and bias.


I never said I had to follow the Mosaic law. I seek to follow Jesus teaching, which I have given you. Jesus fulfilled the law and prophets.
If you are saying you need to either follow the law or not follow it, then what did you mean by the 'golden rule'? Did you mean
James 2:8 "If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right." then
Lev 19:18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord
and
Lev 18:22 22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
and you should be following the animal sacrifices etc
Have you done that?

Now lets hear what you have to support you idea about 'gay' christianity.
I’ve asked @docphin5 for scriptural support that shows approval at that lifestyle and thus far I’ve gotten nada!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mik
I’ve asked @docphin5 for scriptural support that shows approval at that lifestyle and thus far I’ve gotten nada!
There is your problem. It is the mindless mindset that if it is not literally spelled out in scripture then it cannot be true. The Pharisees searched the scripture but could not see anywhere that Yeshua was the Messiah.

What is spelled out is the Golden rule, do not do to others what you would not want done to you. Would you like someone else to tell you who you are allowed to spend the rest of your life with? Someone to tell you what physical attributes you are allowed to be sexually attracted to? Of course not, but that is exactly what you are doing based on a very limited number of obscure verses dealing with topics unrelated to a comprehensive analysis of sexual behavior.

One thing I know is that there will be no sexual behavior in the next world. Therefore, God did not find it worthwhile to even include it. Yet the christian orthodoxy is hung up on regulating an external, physical desire of the flesh that God has forbid to everyone in heaven. My guess is that God has his mind on more important matters, like, how we should be treating one another.

This does not answer your request for comprehensive Biblical support for gay marriage but then again, there are a lot of things the Bible is silent on. The bible was not meant to be rule book on any situation that could occur in life, but instead teaches us how to use our moral intellect (or holy spirit) to choose the good. We will not always agree but that is the fault of humans with personal bias or prejudice or partisan positions, not of the wisdom that comes from God.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top