Condemn gay marriage, or just gay rape?

The Bible isn't Penthouse Forum. It doesn't go into details about people's sex lives except for procreation and adultery. It would be no surprise if committed gay couples weren't explicitly mentioned. David and Jonathan and Naomi and Ruth seem to be quite plausible examples of committed same-sex relationships.You're trying to prove a negative, which is (typically) poor logic. What you need to do is find positive evidence that committed same-sex relationships were forbidden. As I've mentioned before, the commandments have nothing to say about it.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Yes in a church and only by a famous well known and established evangelist like Billy Graham, inside an authorized chapelDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

As I have already pointed out, the Bible is notorious for pointing out even sexual sins, fornication, adultry, etc. There would be an example, yet there is not. Your attempts to make them into such is silly Ive already given you an analogy that sets this type of argument of yours aside and shows that assumption will not workI dont need to prove what does not existDawn Bertot

Your attempt to prove a negative is what's silly. What you need to show is positive evidence in the Bible that same-sex committed relationships are forbidden. An analogy is not evidence. An imagined "pattern" is not evidence.The only commandment that God made about marriage was fidelity. You need to deal with that honestly.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Is this not the point that Ringo (et al) are making?The Bible is prescriptive, and yet is doesn't say "same-sex marriage (SSM) is wrong".
"There would be an example, yet there is not." - If SSM is a sin then why is there not an example with an appropriate warning?If all you have are some vague inferences, then clearly God didn't care enough to make a clear statement.

As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted...Let's deal with this first. If the God in Job was rated as a 1 I would say I would rate about a 15 or higher.But that is not saying much. The God in Job is just a character, a plot device in the story and the story is not about God but rather that bad things happen to good people and that it is often not their fault.You even note that in your post yet don't seem to make the connection that it is just a fable. Of course that is NOT what the passage says. In the passage Jesus calls all the world before him, no nonsense about "the least of these my brothers" being a phrase that refers to Jews and Christians who are persecuted on the earth under Antichrist. Not even a mention of some Antichrist or some persecution.I realize that YOUR chapter of Club Christian might teach it that way using the nonsense of proof texts where you pull some piece out of context from some entirely different story and pretend that it supports YOUR interpretation, but it is simply NOT what the story in Matthew 25 says.An you are right, it is not "explicitly refering[sic] to homosexuals" but to all that are hungry and need food, naked and need clothes, homeless and need shelter, powerless and need protection, sorrowful and need comfort.It is what Christianity is all about.Note that in the story, the GOATs are Christians, followers of Jesus. Yet that very statement shows what you really teach your children and quite frankly, it is a revolting position.And yes, I believe that you are right, you do not know what to think.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

It may be true that YOUR chapter of Club Christian does not recognize infant baptism as valid and if so, I suggest that YOUR chapter of Club Christian not perform infant baptisms.BUT do not presume to speak for either GOD or Christianity.If you wish to discuss infant baptism please start a thread on it and I will be glad to try to educate you about other chapters of Club Christian and how they view the issue.And the question remains:

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Not to Job, but to Satan. True or not true: The main storyline in Job was that God was proving a point to Satan at Job's expense? True or not true?I think that much is indisputable. And on account of his integrity, he was tormented severely. Oh, sure, he got back twice what he lost, but since when are family members replaceable? Even if true, is that a reason to execute his family? Job is just a weak, fallible human, who was made the way his Creator made him.The reason why people are upset at the CONCEPT of the Judeo-Christian is that God has no excuse if he is omnipotent and the creator of everything. Given the amount of needless suffering, that would make God complicit in all of it. That doesn't sit well with people, nor should it. Please offer any other scenario aside from the bloody obvious -- that God was simply trying to prove a philosophical point to Satan at Job's expense. Considering God has executed more people than Hitler and the bubonic plague combined, I'd say that makes me a boyscout in comparison. From what we know of Jesus, he was a stand-up guy. Provided the stories attributed to Jesus are real, he puts me to shame. But I can say the same of Buddha too, so, meh, *shrugs* If I'm on a higher level than Stalin, how come his impact on history is far more prevalent? Typical. Questioning truth = satanic influence. I think maybe Satan has gotten to you too being that you question the validity of Allah. Or, you know, theoretically God could just vanish Satan. But he doesn't, does he? Why can't they be own objections? Why are you equivocating? Why can't my objections be my own, as opposed to some inherent Satanic attack? That implies that my will is not my own, in which case, what would I be punished for? How is critically analyzing truth claims indicative of1. Lies
2. Poor intelligence
3. Necessarily a bad thing I never felt more restless and without peace than when I was a professing Christian. I have never felt more at peace with who I am than when I finally let go of superstition. Empty platitudes. That should be a Hallmark card at some dollar store. God is not my enemy, because I very seriously doubt there is one. I don't make enemies with the Tooth Fairy because the tooth fairy isn't there. There's no one to make enemies with. Perhaps it's easier for you to believe that I'm shaking my fists at the sky and seething with vengeful rage, but I'm not. We're just two guys having a theological discussion. Which is why I question what truth is, which you likened to Satanic influence. I don't believe it was deserved, I just don't think it happened. I attempted to cash that check already. Insufficient funds. So I take it you don't believe in freewill, in which case why then do heathens burn during the Judgment? But that's an assumption based on things you want to believe versus what you actually know. Nope, that doesn't work for rather obvious reasons. Why shouldn't I just do the same for Islam, waste my entire life on falsehoods, die, and still have no answers?

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

I only need to demonstrate that that which is not stated, where a pattern is ALREADY given, IS ALL one needs for and example or pattern to follow.I believe you have assumtion and that is it. Unless you are at this time ready to provide an example of your method of obeying Gods will, aside from assumption If you cannot respond to my analogies, just say so.Heres another one for you to mull over.In the desert Moses was instructed to speak to the rockNow Moses was NOT TOLD he COULD NOT Strike the rockSo according to your method of OBEDIENCE, Moses had every right to SRIKE, the rock, since there was no COMMAND, to "Not to strike the rock"Only a directive to speak to the rock.In fact according to you he could have spoke and sung to the rock spoke and danced a jig in front of it and been justified.That is if he had followed the Ringo, method of interpretationAre begininng to see how ignorant your approach isTHERE IS NO NEED FOR ASSUMPTION, WHERE GOD HAS ALRADY SPOKENDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Hey rocket scientist, this is an analogy and an illustrationIt would have been better if you had delt with it in context, since Ringo did not No thanks, Id rather be instructed by someone that has an education higher than the seventh gradeBut, thanks thoughDawn bertot

Yet you brought the subject up and ignore the topic?It may be true that YOUR chapter of Club Christian does not recognize infant baptism as valid and if so, I suggest that YOUR chapter of Club Christian not perform infant baptisms.BUT do not presume to speak for either GOD or Christianity.And still the question remains:

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

My method of obeying God's will is to obey the commandments, which boil down to, "Love God and love they neighbour as thyself." Loving thy neighbour as thyself includes allowing him the same kind of committed marriage that you want for yourself. There is no commandment against that. I did respond to your analogy. Your understanding of baptism is wrong.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

H, its all about what position one is in to make such decisions.You mad at God, because you are humanWhen you removed the old brush and cleared the boards away in your back yard, then killied and displaced literally thousands of ants and bugs.What made that ok, from a moral perspectivePlease give me the moral justification in a couple of sentencesDawn Bertot

Was Moses justified in striking the rock, if there was NOT a command, to not strike the rockAccording to your method he was. I defy you to show otherwise, atleast according to your approachAssumption is silly when it comes to obeying God
Dawn Bertot

Moses was reprimanded for not believing God:

quote:

---

Num 20:12 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

---

It had nothing to do with a command or lack of a command. It was Moses' attitude that was inappropriate.You're still thinking backwards. In a group of commandments, if there is no commandment against something, we can conclude (not assume) that there is no commandment against that thing. The same doesn't necessarily apply anywhere else.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi