RobertVB <nospam@4me.com> wrote in message
news:<c6bogf$tg5$0@216.39.173.68>...

In article <1414fd53.0404230900.59e9da8e@posting.google.com>, Sneechres
<sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:

RobertVB <nospam@4me.com> wrote in message
news:<c61d6f$ann$0@216.39.173.68>...

In article <1414fd53.0404190908.2599e1f1@posting.google.com>, Sneechres
<sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:

RobertVB <nospam@4me.com> wrote in message
news:<c5upqu$gl5$0@216.39.173.68>...

In article <1414fd53.0404181056.42723212@posting.google.com>,
Sneechres
<sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:<0Fvgc.13690$zj3.10137@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...

Xomicron wrote:

xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote in
news:4085d8b8.77492920@netnews.mchsi.com:

I'll ask the question again in case you didn't understand it the first
time: What part of Christian doctrine supports homosexuality?

Any part that says it does. Duh.

The
problem is that you now need to debate Christian doctrine.

No I don't - anyone proclaiming they have a christian doctrine has one,
by definition. They can handle snakes, they fall down having
religiously enduced fits. makes no different to the discussion.

Perhaps
you can't because you're ignorant.

No I'm obviously far better informed than you. All of those groups
have very complete doctrines that justify their beliefs, all of them
equally as valid.

Synonyms: valid, sound, 2cogent, convincing
These adjectives describe assertions, arguments, conclusions,
reasons, or intellectual processes that are persuasive because they
are well founded. What is valid is based on or borne out by truth or
fact or has legal force: a valid excuse; a valid claim. What is sound
is free from logical flaws or is based on valid reasoning: a sound
theory; sound principles. Something cogent is both sound and
compelling: cogent testimony; a cogent explanation. Convincing implies
the power to dispel doubt or overcome resistance or opposition:
convincing proof.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

the particulars are obviously unimportant because
one group can not tell the other what they can or cannot, will or will
not believe.

This isn't about freedom to believe any fool thing one wants. It's
about whether it's reasonable to believe a particular concept.

Prove it by posting here the Christian doctrine that supports
homosexuality.

Don't need to any more than I need to post one that shows someone's
christian doctrine supports airplanes.

You do if you want to support your own statement.

I can post a lot of stuff that's against it, wanna
see?

You can try. But as you know they are all debunked and irrelevant to
many christian sects. Lets do a quick runthrough:

Old Testament - old news - many Christian sects say the old law has
passed as that was what jesus specifically is quoted that he was here
to do.

Jesus said he was here to fulfill the law.........not get rid of it.
Matthew 5:17-20 17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the
Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 "For truly I
say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter
or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

New Testament - Jesus makes it clear that all the law now flows from
two laws = love god, love each other as god loves you. Nope nothing
incompatible with homosexuality there.

See above.

New Testament - jesus makes it clear it isn't a laundry list of mere
acts that denotes sin but why we do what we do. As such it is highly
unlikely that homosexuality is any more a sin than heterosexuality - it
is the context that is important.

Did you want to actually quote some verses that might back up what you
say?

New Testament - Paul, note: NOT God, chastized the Corinthians for
engaging in all sorts of activities they thought were ok for Christians
to engage in. All of them involved idolatrous activities - again
nothing to do with two people in a committed relationship before God
regardless of their genders. (interestingly Paul also chastized the
Corinthians for masturbation but that was changed when it became to
inconvenient for the church). the same list is repeated once in the new
Testament, but there is no indication that it has any other
connotation.

New Testament - Jesus made it clear that the ability to be celibate was
a gift from God that only some received. God doesn't require those
who have not received this gift to be celibate. Since sexual
orientation is something that is innate and unchangable

The jury is still out on that one.

it can easily
be inferred that even gay people are not required to be celibate
without the 'gift'.

Oh, you can infer it. That doesn't make it so.

Jesus heals the young boy slave of a Roman Centaurion, traditionally
kept in part for sexual purposes. Jesus proclaims that this man is
the kind of guy he wants into heaven. Obviously there are many
reasonable questions raised by this scenerio.

Anything I missed?

The whole.

Maybe to you stupid stuff like that makes
sense, but fortunately most of the rest of the Christians around the
world know better.

Since who is and isn't a Christian isn't up to popular vote but by who
professes to they have a Christian belief,

Who is and is not a Christian is determined by an evaluation of one's
belief system and actions based upon it.

Which they get to do themselves, not you.

Actually, God gets to.
"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of
heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will
enter. "

one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Where did Jesus Christ teach that homosexuality is OK?

Where did he teach it was wrong?

Matthew 19:4-6

and Mark 10:6-9.

Specific answers to a questions about wives in heterosexual marriage -
not relevant to anything else.

You are seeing negatives that aren't even spoken. Come now, even you
can see that your assumptions about what this means do not necessarily
have to be what other Christians think it means, right?

So, if a mom says "Go to school." but doesn't say anything else, a
child can infer that she didn't actually prohibit going to a friend's
house instead?

And you don't think, "For this reason God made them male and female"
doesn't say it all?

Rather, Christ preached on the creation model of male and female in
the context of marriage.

He didn't say anything about airplanes either, doesn't mean he was
against them.

I guess he must have been for necrophilia, heroin abuse, and a slew of
other things "he didn't say anything about."

Exactly! YOu can't be sure what he would have said as such you can not
speak with authority if these are sins or not. If you made love to
your wife and she died before you were done and you didn't notice
would that be a sin? obviously not. If you became addicted to heroin
because someone was administering it to you involutarily would that be
a sin? Obviously not.

What we do know is that jesus was very much into context of actions as
such I am sure that just about any mere act can be sinful or not
depending on the the motivation and context of it. Shoot the OT
proscribes lying yet in one of the parables jesus recommends it under
certain situations. Again, it is all context - many christian sects
say that is the very crux of what Christianity was all about - freedom
from a laundry list of do's and don'ts and now being saved by grace
with no set rules other than striving to 'love god' and 'love each
other as god loves us'. Again absolutely nothing universally
proscriptive about homosexuality there, is there?

So throw out that whole Bible thing, huh? I guess when Jesus said,
"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the
scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." he
was just spitting in the wind.

Makes one wonder why he wasted his breath talking about male and
female if the concept doesn't mean anything.

I'm sure it does in the context of the question he was anwsering, i.e
is it ok for me to dump my wife?

Why did Jesus bother to say, "for this reason, God made them male and
female?"

Dear, look up the words "argument from silence" and post here whether
or not it's a logical fallacy.

No need - its up to you to show that there is some universally held
Christian doctrine that absolutely proscribes homosexuality. Obviously
you can't since the ONLY universally quality of Christian doctrine is
that it has something to do with Jesus the Christ.

Truth doesn't require a quorum.

His apostles, whose words are considered inspired Christian doctrine

by some Christians

By all Christians. People who do not accept the Bible as the inspired
word of God are not Christians.

yes they are. for example quakers think it is a really nice book
written by men - they are still christians.

Satan believes Jesus to be the Son. Is he a Christian?

are dead against it.

Really? Which of his apostles are against it?

Paul. See the first part of Romans as well as most of 1 Timothy.

Oh I thought you meant real Apostles - Paul never even met Jesus (or so
some Christians believe)

But Paul calls himself an apostle. Doesn't that make him one?

So, how can one call oneself a Christian and then act/believe in a
decidedly un-Christian fashion?

By not believing what you believe

That's contradictory.

Only if you are so arrogant that you think you can define what
Christianity is beyond the dictionary definition.

Beyond the dictionary definition? Who wrote the dictionary? Some
infallible being? BTW, that would make Satan a Christian.

but still professing your doctrine and beliefs are Christian fairly
obviously.

Sweetheart, you think *voodoo* is Christian. You're too much of a
twit to debate this.

it is Christian - whether you like it or not. YOU DON"T GET TO CHOOSE!

And you do?

You don't have a damned thing to say about it.

Hmmm seems that, by definition, anyone who says they are a
Christian is
a Christian.

That's incorrect, you said so yourself.

No that's correct,

No, even you posted a definition.

yep I did. Anyone who follows a doctrine calling it Christian is a
Christian. QED.

Not according to the American Heritage definition.

So that proves that you don't go
just by what a person says.

No that's exactly what it proves.

You have to consult an outside source of
some kind.

No you don't. If they say their doctrine is about Jesus Christ they
are Christians, by definition.

And if I can fold a decent paper airplane, that makes me an aerospace
engineer.

n : an engineer of aircraft and space vehicles

You just haven't gone far enough yet. Instead of thinking
logically and accepting that Christians decide what Christianity is,

yes but since THESE PEOPLE ARE CHRISTIANS they get to decide. The ONLY
requirement is that they feel they have derived their doctrine from
JESUS CHRIST.

If they feel?

you think that should be left up to Funk and Wagnalls.

That's an encyclopedia. Words are generally defined in dictionaries.

http://www.harpercollins.com/catalog/order_xml.asp?isbn=0061007080

any group professing Christian doctrine or belief

Right, that's not just saying a person is a Christian. How would you
know? Why, by examining what they believe in light of Christian
doctrine, of course.

No the doctrine is their decision, not yours. All they have to do is
say it is derived from the teachings of Jesus and it is a Christian
doctrine.

Even if it isn't derived from the teachings of Jesus?

Not that it matters, you don't know up from down.

Typical: you lose, you insult. YOu don't have many tricks in that
bag of yours, do you?

If a group says they have a Christian doctrine or belief, then they are
Christians - by definition.

If a group says they are police officers, how can you tell if what
they say is true?

By seeing if they fit the definition of a police officer you ninny!

Exactly.

Since a police officer is identified by someone else other than
themselves obviously it isn't self-defining as being a Christian is.

Being a Christian isn't self-defining.

A
person is a Christian if they profess to following a doctrine or belief
derived from the life or teachings of Jesus Christ.

Well, not quite. They profess to following Christ and living
according to his teachings......not what they believe his teaching to
be. At least, not according to American Heritage.

As such the person
who is claiming to be a Christian gets to decide if they are a
Christian. Not even comparable to a police officer.

Christianity has a definition.

yes it does.

Unfortunately, the definition goes beyond what you seem to be familiar
with.

No it is just more expansive than you think it is.

And it says anyone who believes they are a Christian is
effectively a Christian.

Is anyone who believes they are a horse effectively a horse?

if that was the definition, sure, but you aren't so confused as to
think that the definition of a horse is 'anyone professing to having
horse doctrine or belief' though are you?

Read the definition for Christian again.

Calling oneself a Christian is not what makes someone a
Christian. Anyone who professes CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE is a Christian.

yes but since you don't decide if others doctrine is correct or not,

Yes I do.

No you don't.

If that doctrine is based on the teachings of Jesus, and the teachings
of Jesus are documented, then it can be determined if a person is
following those teachings.