50 ‘Hand-Picked’ Christians Trained To Convince Churches To Re-Interpret Scripture’s Gay Boundaries

The Aquila Report ^ | 9-29-13 | Jeff Schapiro

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

At this point, someone should carefully note the names of this chosen 50 ‘hand-picked’ saboteurs, so that when they try to infiltrate and corrupt, despite what they say to ingratiate themselves, they will be known for what they are.

[VRW Conspirator]

Most went out for a smoke until she shut up and I joined them.

Bump. Some things are sacred. This mother confuses love for tolerance. We are saved because of Love (3:16), but Love was intolerant of certain things. And that Love is timeless, absolute, sacred.

[lastchance]

Now the secret is out. That is their goal. If you break down the barriers to allow for monogamous homosexual relationships then don’t claim surprise when the other barriers also fall because you have pulled out the cornerstone.

I also wonder when those “Christians” who believe it is o.k. to accept monogamous homosexual relationships will do when gays start demanding that they be accepted on their own terms of what is right in sexual behavior and not only when conforming to the accepted norm of monogamy?

[vladimir998]

Which Bible translation legitimizes homosexuality?

There is this: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DobrasOxfordBible.php

And then this: http://www.amazon.com/Source-Testament-Extensive-Notes-Meaning/dp/0980443008

That’s all there is so far. Thank goodness.

[Oliviaforever]

Monogamous or not, homosexuality violates our rights as Christians and it is not congruent with our beliefs, standards or constitution.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

If you accept Evolution as a fact, then you must accept moral relativism as a fact.

Not true...

ALL MEN ARE BORN OF A WOMAN.

Mammals can only evolve heterosexually... even Genesis says as much...

[MacNaughton]

44 Which Bible translation legitimizes homosexuality? ...

DEC 2012 – A new, homosexual-friendly translation of the Bible was published - The Queen James Bible, by “God”, contributor Jesus Christ (anonymous editors), published by Queen James, © Queen James. This new translation sought to resolve what the editors called “interpretive ambiguity” in the Bible as it pertained to homosexuality. The editors left untouched virtually all of the King James Version (KJV, 1611). They edited only the 8 verses which have traditionally condemned homosexuality in a way that made homophobic interpretations impossible. Homosexualists identified the Reverend J. Pearson of San Francisco’s Holy Innocents Episcopal Church as the mastermind behind the rainbow-themed Bible. The editors’ dedication reads …

“The King James Bible is the most popular Bible of all time, and arguably the most important English language document of all time. It is the brainchild and namesake of King James I, who wanted an English language Bible that all could own and read. The KJV, as it is called, has been in print for over 400 years and has brought more people to Christ than any other Bible translation. Commonly known to biographers but often surprising to most Christians, King James I was a well-known bisexual. Though he did marry a woman, his many gay relationships were so well-known that amongst some of his friends and court, he was known as "Queen James." It is in his great debt and honor that we name The Queen James Bible so.”

[ReformationFan]

Ultimately, what a translation(or mistranslation) says or doesn’t say is not the most important criteria here. What does Scripture say in the original languages of the autographs? From what I’ve learned, every time same sex acts are referenced in Scripture it’s always to condemn them and never to support them.

[Zeneta]

Do you really want to do this Now ?

Virtually All leading evolutionary Scientists and Philosophers agree that to be a consistent “Evolutionist” you must accept “Moral Relativism”.

Right and wrong is the product of a social construct that provides for the survival of a particular species.

In addition, Free will does not exist.

I suppose Pappa Bears didn’t get the survival memo as they attempt to eat their offspring.

Survival, despite their pre-wired desire to eat their young.

BTW,

Your NOT TRUE statement makes no sense as a reply to my statement.

If you accept Evolution as a fact, then you must accept moral relativism as a fact.

[vladimir998]

We don’t have the autographs, but I agree with you - the Bible always condemns homosexuality.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

If you accept Evolution as a fact, then you must accept moral relativism as a fact.

NONSENSE.

All men are born of a woman.

The law is nothing without the hands and swords of men.

Stop changing the subject.

Mammalian evolution is entirely heterosexual.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

BTW

Morality and any associated ideal is rooted entirely in a presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.

You make a lot of illogical comments.

[Zeneta]

I agree with your statement.

However, I find your repetition a reflection of your desire to speak.

Not Listen.

So, as I agree with “all men are born of a woman”

You certainly are aware of the efforts of “learned”, “Neo-Darwinists” that would argue to the contrary ?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You’re full of crap, you don’t know a thing about your Bible...

I’m not interested in your vain personal doctrine.

Don’t bother me further.

[Zeneta]

Let’s go. Let’s go !!!

Presupposition has been the domain of Science, which has utterly failed to recognized their own presumptions.

By definition, science can only address that which can be reduced or observed.

Materialist’s and the reductionists have lost this battle long ago.

The new meme to avoid Creation is Alien encounters.

Let’s go !!!

[Zeneta]

I need to ask you a question in all seriousness.

Would it make any difference to you if it were proven beyond every and all shadow of doubt that the earth was no older than, say 10,000 years?

I'm not asking if YOU would accept this, I'm asking if everybody around you accepted this, would YOU have a different worldview ?

Would your foundations of belief be different if it were scientifically proven that evolution is impossible ?

I would venture that your "OUT" is alien, ET, which has some even more extraordinary beliefs.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

[Zeneta]

BTW,

Your are right.

I don’t know a thing about my bible.

I couldn’t quote a single verse.

I did not come to Christianity because the Bible says so.

I came to Christianity kicking and screaming to prove it false.

I spent the better part of the last 12 years examining literally every and all alternative views.

When push comes to shove; evolution is both scientifically and mathematically IMPOSSIBLE.

As a result that leaves us with Creation or Panspermia.

Or a combination of the two.

Let’s go !!!

[American Constitutionalist]

I saw many churches get hooked on the latest hip thing back in the 90's hook, line and sinker with that thing.
When I see a church having to go after the latest fad, latest teaching to be with the " IN CROWD " then it's time to leave that church.

[Blackirish]

I don’t see the correlation between evolution and moral relativism. I evolution may have been God’s plan. I’m not a moral relativist.

[Zeneta]

Jennifer Knapp - Romans

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFPO0iBdRBU