Christian Mingle to Allow Homosexual Matching Following Discrimination Suit

Mingle-compressedLOS ANGELES — A dating site known as Christian Mingle has agreed to open its website for matching homosexuals following a class-action discrimination suit filed in federal court.

Being a Christian-identifying site, Christian Mingle currently only offers the options of a “man seeking a woman” or a “woman seeking a man.” But two homosexual men who went to the site found that it did not provide an option for those seeking a romantic relationship with the same sex.

They sued Spark Networks, Inc., the parent company of Christian Mingle, alleging a violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which requires businesses to provide services regardless of one’s “sexual orientation.”

“All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever,” the law reads in part.

The case has been in the courts since 2013, but recently Spark Networks agreed to settle the matter and allow homosexual dating on its site.

According to the settlement, within two years, “Spark will ensure that the ‘man seeking woman’ and ‘woman seeking man’ options … only ask whether the user is a ‘man’ or ‘woman.'”

“Spark represents and warrant that it is updating the Mingle sites, and to the extent Spark continues to operate any of the Mingle sites in the future, such sites will be updated to create an experience which will allow individuals seeking same-sex partners to use Spark’s matching technologies to find and be matched with others seeking same-sex partners,” it reads.

  • Connect with Christian News

 

In addition, Spark Networks agreed to pay the plaintiffs in the case $9,000 each, as well as $450,000 in legal fees to their attorneys. It did not admit any wrongdoing in the matter.

“I am gratified that we were able to work with Spark to help ensure that people can fully participate in all the diverse market places that make our country so special, regardless of their sexual orientation,” Vineet Dubey, an attorney for one of the men, said in a statement.

Spark said that it is “pleased to resolve this litigation.”

However, not all are elated with the development.

“ChristianMingle is based on Christian beliefs, and a good number of denominations consider homosexual acts to be sinful. It seems rather petty to force a company to change their beliefs rather than simply find (or … start) an alternative dating site,” writes Christine Rouselle for Town Hall.

In addition to Christian Mingle, the agreement also pertains to most of Spark’s other dating sites, including Catholic Mingle, LDS Singles, Silver Singles and Black Singles.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Allan Trenholme

    Are there any Muslim dating sites in the US? That would be an interesting situation.

    • Guest

      Muslima and Qiran.

    • TheBottomline4This

      I think they’re are a few, but gays won’t go after those sites out of fear.

      • Charles

        It is.. Says meet Mormon Singles. So I think they are.

        • TheBottomline4This

          Guess I missed the wording when I looked at it. Thanks!!

      • Allan Trenholme

        Exactly…. so much for “equality” eh.

  • GibbyD

    Make any member sign a Christian pledge of belief in God’s Word , The Bible and The Gospel . That will eliminate contamination from sexual perverts.

  • Guest

    Christian Mingle is a Mormon site, not a Christian site.

    • TheBottomline4This

      Hmm, really. I looked it up and didn’t’ see them list a denomination they are connected with. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I couldn’t find any info about the site and it being mormon.

      • Guest

        Here you go:

        “ChristianMingle DOT com: owned by Mormons and based in Utah. They do their
        best to hide this from their Christian singles members. It seems that
        Christians regard LDS as a “cult”

        From Online Dating Insider

    • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

      I found it . It does say Mormons based in Utah. I would never have guessed that.I know a lot about Mormons and they are not Christians.

  • Harry Oh!

    Yet another example of how far off base Christianity has fallen. This is why you need to focus on the Word only and disassociate from all organized religion. The true tares are finally being exposed and guess what? They’re smack dab right in the middle of our own institutions.

    • cadcoke5

      The establishment of organized groups to follow Christs is certainly appropriate, from all the teachings in the New Testament. There are certainly denominations, and individual churches that have walked away from the faith that founded them, but it is incorrect to assert that all are apostate.

  • Theodore Fenton

    I’m glad to learn that Christian Mingle has agreed to cease discriminating against gay Christians.

    • Charles

      “Gay” Christian is akin to something like a “Skinny Obese” person. That isn’t going to work.

      • Stephen W.

        Don’t be silly. There’s plenty of gay Christians, just like there’s plenty of Middle Eastern Christians, and plenty of African-American Christians.

        • John Galtius

          Part of the problem is that Christians define “gay,” as one thing, and the bible defines it as another. You define it however you please. But the organization is established to accommodate a certain belief range, and it is not a publicly owned business. In other words, what they allow is not based on what YOU think, but on what the owners of the organization think.

          If the government makes the rules, they own it. Only the owner can make the rules.

        • Charles

          Homosexuality is a sin. Just like fornication, adultery, covetousness, etc… If you are deliberately sinning and are “Proud” of it.. You’re not a Christian. Sorry.

          • TheBottomline4This

            “Stephen W” is really Theodore Fenton. Good old Theo still sniffing around, but under another name. lol

          • Stephen W.

            Not your decision to make.

        • Thomas R.

          DO NOT place being Black in the same category as being GAY, God has never punished a City for being Black, But Sodom (sodomites) was destroyed because of the unnatural act of lying with the same sex.

          • Stephen W.

            God never punished a city for being gay either.

          • Amos Moses

            See ……….. you cant even tell the truth about that ………………….

          • Ronald Carter

            He’s right.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Theo…I found this for ya…..The biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah is recorded in Genesis chapters 18-19. Genesis chapter 18 records the Lord and two angels coming to speak with Abraham. The Lord informed Abraham that “the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous.” Verses 22-33 record Abraham pleading with the Lord to have mercy on Sodom and Gomorrah because Abraham’s nephew, Lot, and his family lived in Sodom.
            Genesis chapter 19 records the two angels, disguised as human men, visiting Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, “Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'” The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver. Lot and his family flee the city, and then “the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah — from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities…”
            In light of the passage, the most common response to the question “What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?” is that it was homosexuality. That is how the term “sodomy” came to be used to refer to anal sex between two men, whether consensual or forced. Clearly, homosexuality was part of why God destroyed the two cities. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to perform homosexual gang rape on the two angels (who were disguised as men). At the same time, it is not biblical to say that homosexuality was the exclusive reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were definitely not exclusive in terms of the sins in which they indulged.
            Ezekiel 16:49-50 declares, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me…” The Hebrew word translated “detestable” refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an “abomination.” Similarly, Jude 7 declares, “…Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.” So, again, while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities.
            Those who attempt to explain away the biblical condemnations of homosexuality claim that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were certainly being inhospitable. There is probably nothing more inhospitable than homosexual gang rape. But to say God completely destroyed two cities and all their inhabitants for being inhospitable clearly misses the point. While Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many other horrendous sins, homosexuality was the reason God poured fiery sulfur on the cities, completely destroying them and all of their inhabitants. To this day, the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were located remains a desolate wasteland. Sodom and Gomorrah serve as a powerful example of how God feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically.

          • Stephen W.

            The Bible itself expressly describes the sin of Sodom elsewhere as radical inhospitality. According to the prophet Ezekiel, the real “guilt” of the Sodomites was the fact that, although they had “pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease,” they “did not aid the poor and needy” and were “haughty” (Ezekiel 16:49-50). Similarly, the Letter to the Hebrews warns Christians by alluding to the true sin of the Sodomites as inhospitality: “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it” (Hebrews 13:2).

            — Rev. Patrick S. Cheng, Ph.D., for The Huffington Post

          • Amos Moses

            Yeah …………….. sticking your business where it HAS NO BUSINESS …….. EXTREMELY inhospitable ……………

          • Amos Moses

            Allah the Almighty revealed: The people of Lot (those dwelt in the towns of Sodom in Palestine) belied the Messengers when their brother Lot said to them:

            “Will you not fear Allah and obey Him? Verily! I am a trustworthy Messenger to you. SO fear Allah, keep your duty to Him, and obey me. No reward do I ask of you for it (my Message of Islamic Monotheism) my reward is only from the Lord of the Alamin (mankind, jinn and all that exists). Go you in unto the males of the Alamin (mankind), and leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your wives? Nay, you are a trespassing people!”

            They said: “If you cease not, O Lot! Verily, you will be one of those who are driven out!”

            He said: “I am indeed, of those who disapprove with severe anger and fury your (this evil) action (of sodomy). My Lord! Save me and my family from what they do.”

            So We saved him and his family, all except an old woman (his wife) among those who remained behind. [Ch 26:160-171 Quran]

            Even muslims know you are wrong ……….. same story ……….. same names ….. huh! …………

        • Amos Moses

          And again the same false comparison of DEPRAVITY and RACE and it is STILL RACIST………………….. Race is not DEPRAVITY …………..

    • TheBottomline4This

      We know you are Theodore Fenton. Interesting you are now “Stephen W”.

      Gays can be Christians, but they won’t continue that lifestyle Theo if the really are a Christian. Just like a Christian who is an Alcoholic won’t continue drinking.
      So given enough time the gay will cease the lifestyle and live right Theo.

      • Stephen W.

        It’s the new me.

  • John Galtius

    Close it.

  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    Politics destroying business.

  • Charles

    ” But two homosexual men who went to the site found that it did not provide an option for those seeking a romantic relationship with the same sex.”

    That’s because Christians don’t have same sex “Marriages”. That’s because you are not a Christian. See how easy that was.

    • Eye Offend

      Right. Christians are comfortable molesting children.

      • TheBottomline4This

        Ah you talking about the Josh Duggar?
        I’m not sure he’s a Christian. He could be one who claims to be, but isn’t.
        Matthew 7:20-23 says, “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in Heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.”

        • Eye Offend

          Christians are known for their perversions. Just Google “christian molesters” and you will find over a half million results.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Well your Lena Dunham is the poster child for that one dear. SMH
            She’s a disgusting child molester herself…your point???

          • Eye Offend

            Who is Lena Dunham? Who is Josh Duggar ?? I have no clue who you are referring to.

          • TheBottomline4This

            You’re probably lying.

          • Eye Offend

            Of course. There you go playing God again.

          • TheBottomline4This

            You gripe about judging while judging.
            LOL
            You’re such a fool Solomon Burke.

          • Eye Offend

            Do you really think my name is Solomon Burke? Are you really that ignorant? Try Google. It’s the name of a soul and Gospel singer.

            You need some serious help.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Sweetie, ya better be glad I’m calling you that. Stop being so offended by everything. You liberals are such sissies.

          • Eye Offend

            You conservatives are nothing but two faced liars, cheats and perverts who hide behind the word of God. Do you think any of your dribble has been “Christlike” ? Do not try to turn that around on me because I never made a claim either way to being a devout “Christian”. I know I’m a sinner and accept the fact I am imperfect. You (and Charles) are the ones who think you are without sin. I have more than proven my point. Goodnight.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Aw, the liberal unbeliever’s feelings are hurt.
            Truth hurts Solomon Burke.
            I’m not without sin, but I’m also not judging the issue of this article, hypocritically. Homosexuality…the practice of gay sex is sin. Just like adultery or any other perverted sex choice.
            I haven’t lied or cheated and I’m not a perv.
            Can the same be said of you Solomon???

          • Eye Offend

            You haven’t lied? Tell another one Gary.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Tell me when I lied to you.

          • Eye Offend

            You said “I haven’t lied” which is in itself a lie. Maybe you’re lying about being a Christian or maybe you’re actually gay?

          • 201821208 :)

            See, you can’t tell me when I’be lied to you.
            Liberals are so empty.

          • Charles

            So then I was right?

          • Charles

            I think they have trolls that clock in and out.. Part of Satan’s minions.

          • Eye Offend

            You might want to consult a psychiatrist if you believe other humans on a messageboard are “Satan’s Minions”. You might be the next Christy Sheats. So sad nobody reported her Christian insanity posted on Facebook.

          • Charles

            Because if you aren’t WITH God you are against him. You aren’t with the Lord.

          • Eye Offend

            Are you God? You might want to be careful thinking you are God and know what is in another person’s heart or mind.

          • Charles

            Not at all.. But I know you aren’t with him.

          • Eye Offend

            Careful with that Chucky or you might be the one burning for all eternity.

          • Charles

            I’m not mistaken.. You aren’t with the Lord.

          • Eye Offend

            You are not God. You have repeated it three times now, that you are omniscient.

          • Charles

            Yeah.. I know I’m not God.. Already said that.. You come to sow discord because you don’t believe in the Lord.

          • Eye Offend

            Then they reminded Jesus that adultery was punishable by stoning under Mosaic law and challenged him to judge the woman so that they might then accuse him of disobeying the law. Jesus thought for a moment and then replied, “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.”

            You seem to enjoy casting stones. Maybe I’m here to remind you that it is not Christ’s teachings.

          • Charles

            Never claimed to be without sin.. Go ahead tell us what you have an issue with here. Other than Catholic “Priest” have pedophilia issues in their churches..

          • TheBottomline4This

            And again you are cherry picking. What does it say after that???

          • Eye Offend

            Jesus turned into a zombie and ate her brain?

          • TheBottomline4This

            No offended one. He told her, who was an adulterous to “go, and sin no more” He told her not to commit adultery anymore.

          • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

            That’s what I was thinking.Satan is sending his puppets to troll the Christians here.

          • Ronald Carter

            It’s funny, I can argue with atheists all day long and at no point do they ever accuse me of doing Satan’s work. That’s why I prefer arguing with them, they don’t resort to such lazy and intelligence-insulting ridiculousness.

          • Charles

            That’s because Atheist don’t believe in Satan.. Why would they?

          • Ronald Carter

            It’s a little frustrating trying to have a discussion with someone and having them abandon all semblance of being reasonable by suddenly announcing that you’ve been deceived by Satan. You do things like this. Atheists don’t.

          • Charles

            Not so.. Many defend Evolutionary Theory in a similar manner.. Their “Religion” in other words.

          • Ronald Carter

            Charles, if we disagree, I’m not ever going to say you’ve been “deceived” by some force whether real or supernatural. I’m going to call it what it is – a disagreement. And I expect that same courtesy when debating with a Christian. If you honestly believe I’m saying what I say and believing what I believe because Satan has magically corrupted my thinking, you’re not worth discussing anything with.

          • Amos Moses

            “It’s funny, I can argue with atheists all day long and at no point do they ever accuse me of doing Satan’s work.”

            Because both of you are ……………… DUH! ……………

          • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

            They are your kind of people. You should be with them. And STOP TROLLING us. But YOU are not a kind enough person to do that. Plus you get more joy out of trolling Christians don’t you?

          • Ronald Carter

            I don’t care what you think of me, but don’t give me this lazy nonsense about me being sent to troll you by my master Satan. I don’t even believe in Satan so let’s keep him in the storybook files where he belongs. If you’re going to hate on me, it’s me I want you to hate. Not Satan. Satan has nothing to do with me being here.

          • disqus_LonesomeDove

            What a crock. I’ve hardly met any fundamentalist atheist that didn’t resort to lazy and intelligence-insulting ridiculousness. You Christophobes scour the Internet looking for Christians so you can do just that.

          • Ronald Carter

            There is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist. Either you’re an atheist or you are not, there are no brands or flavors.

            Of course you can’t cite an example of what you’re moaning about. What a surprise. My example of fundies who are losing the argument and suddenly invoke Satan and tell me I am deceived, that happens practically daily.

          • disqus_LonesomeDove

            Sure there’s such a thing as a fundamentalist atheist. You believe and adhere to the fundamentals of atheism.

            You do know the definition of fundamental, right?

            ……..forming a necessary base or core; of central importance…… relating to the basic structure or function of something

            That’s what you do. You adhere to the basic core of central importance….the basic structure or function of atheism.
            You might not like the term, but it’s what you are.

            No, I can’t cite an example and neither can you…..but that didn’t stop you from moaning about it first though, did it now?

            Typical atheist hypocrite. Always see the bad in others while ignoring your own faults.

          • Ronald Carter

            No, there are no fundamentals to atheism. The only determining thing is a lack of belief in a higher power. That’s it. It ends there. Since there is no holy book with atheism, there are no degrees to which you can be weak or strong in it.

            Also you don’t serve yourself well when you make guesses and assumptions. You don’t know that I am an atheist. In fact, I’m not. By your standards I might be, since I don’t believe what Christian fundamentalists do (such as things like a literal 7-day creation or a worldwide flood), but disbelieving such things doesn’t make me an atheist. So you can drop the attitude.

          • disqus_LonesomeDove

            Christians are fundamentalist when they believe that the Bible and the existence of God are the absolute truth. Atheists are fundamentalist when they believe their rejection of the Bible and God to be the absolute truth.
            I think your confusion is with the word fundamentalist. Fundamentalist is not a religion; it’s an adjective.

            No one worships fundamentalism.

            The degree of weakness or strength in atheism is how willing you are to go out of your way to argue it. Like you do here…..atheist or not.
            This web site didn’t seek you out, and neither did the Christians here. You sought them out.
            I, for example, don’t believe in flying saucers, yet I don’t go to UFO web sites to argue with those who do. Same with the atheist’s argument “If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby”.
            The problem with this statement is………..people who don’t collect stamps also don’t travel the Internet in order to argue with people who do.

            If you say you’re not an atheist, then fine, but you sure jumped to defend it quick enough and so far….that which you refuse to believe is also that which they refuse to believe, and you too….have come here to argue with people who do.

            No attitude here. Wishing you well.
            🙂

            “Creationism is not science, but it is a very large fly in the science ointment which is what has made some scientists reconsider their view and made others angry.”
            —–LD

          • Ronald Carter

            No, Christians are fundamentalists when they are so rigid in their beliefs that they have a palpable hatred for other Christians. I’ve never met a fundamentalist Christian who didn’t hate Catholics and think they were all “deceived”. There may be some that don’t, but I’ve yet to encounter one. You cannot draw a similar comparison to atheists. They are all in agreement about the single issue at hand.

            I’m on this forum because the subject matter interests me. That means I enjoy discoursing with Christians and atheists equally.

            There is nothing stopping you from going to a UFO website and stating your opinions. You are bound to encounter disagreement, but there’s nothing wrong with that.

          • disqus_LonesomeDove

            Christians don’t hate other Christians. Where did you get that asinine argument? As far as meeting one who doesn’t hate Catholics, you’ve met one now, and I don’t believe you’ve never met one anyway. I believe you’re just to ‘liberal’ with your use of the word hate.

            Leftists, and atheists in particular, define all differing opinions and challenges as hate. A whiny, childish attitude.

            And atheists are in agreement……… with each other….on the issues at hand.

            You’re on this forum to argue in the hope of finding a weak Christian to get in an argument with, and by their weakness, claim a win over all Christians. You only enjoy fighting discourse with Christians if you win. And if you don’t win…..you just claim you did anyway.

            “There is nothing stopping you from going to a UFO website and stating your opinions. You are bound to encounter disagreement, but there’s nothing wrong with that.”

            This was not the point I made. Was it that hard to grasp, or too difficult to counter?

          • Ronald Carter

            Where did I get that “asinine” argument? Are you for real? Maybe you’re just new here? Look at the section of this website called Apostasy and read some of the Catholic-bashing that goes on by fundamentalist Christians. Any headline involving the pope is a good place to start.

            Hate is hate. I know what I’m talking about. And I don’t believe in calling things other than what they are. Read those comments for yourself and you tell me what YOU’d call them. Yes you read that right…I am defending Catholics.

          • disqus_LonesomeDove

            This “section” is not the yardstick by which I measure truth. And the Pope is an apostate. Why is he suddenly accepted when previously any religious figure who became involved in politics was considered to be in violation of Sep of Church and State?
            Now…because he espouses left wing ideology, he’s suddenly worthy of consideration.

            And anyone who hates anyone is not a Christian, unless you can show me where Christ taught anyone to follow Him in hatred.

            Can you?

            Disagreement is not hate. An d hate displayed by people who are weak in their faith is not Christianity.

          • Ronald Carter

            The pope is the leader of the Catholic church. That’s all. If you’re not Catholic, you shouldn’t care what he says. He’s probably accepted by people outside of Catholicism because he is pushing all the things Jesus called for – tolerance, kindness and love.

          • disqus_LonesomeDove

            I don’t care what he says. I care that you use him in this discussion as though I care.

            And he is not pushing everything Jesus called for. Some things maybe, but not everything. He speaks for himself, not me and not Christ.

          • Ronald Carter

            You could say that about any religious leader.

          • disqus_LonesomeDove

            You could also say that about any secular leader. And lets not forget those famous atheists Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin.

          • Ronald Carter

            You might not think the pope is pushing for what Jesus called for. Nobody cares. The point is he believes that’s what he’s doing, and over a billion Catholics worldwide agree with him. And he claims to speak for Christ, so what? Don’t you? Doesn’t every Christian out there?

          • disqus_LonesomeDove

            I don’t care if he does believe in what he’s doing. Stalin believed in what he was doing and so did Hitler. What does believing in what you’re doing have to do with the truth?
            Thieves believe in what they do too. And NO….I’m not calling Catholics thieves or communists or Notseys…….. before I get another misquote.

            The Catholic Church doesn’t use the same Bible as Christians. We use the KJV. The Catholic bible is the Latin Vulgate Bible, or known in English as the Douay-Rheims Bible.
            There’s more than a little difference in the two.

            I don’t speak for Christ. Have you ever seen me speak for Him?

            But a bigger question is….why are you defending THIS religious leader?

          • Ronald Carter

            Are Notseys similar to Nazis?

            It’s interesting to me that you will say that what you are doing is pro-Christian and yet a respected leader like the pope isn’t.

          • disqus_LonesomeDove

            “Are Notseys similar to Nazis?”

            I keep forgetting that I’m not on the Daily Caller where that word isn’t allowed.

            I will say?
            I will say????

            Can you read everyone’s mind like you do mine?

            LOL….anyway…..the Pope doesn’t have my respect any more than any other man does before he earns it.
            He’s not my leader. He rejects my Bible and my belief, so why shouldn’t I reject his?

          • Ronald Carter

            The pope does not reject the Bible, how ridiculous. He’s one of the major proponents of the Christian church worldwide.

          • disqus_LonesomeDove

            How many times do I have to explain this. He doesn’t reject ‘his’ bible.

            He does reject mine, because they are two very different books.

            However, he does say a lot of things that the left embraces with open arms, so is that why you respect this religious leader as opposed to one whom I might respect?
            Hmmm?

          • Ronald Carter

            Two very different books? Are you going to now tell me that the Catholics added books to the Bible? I think it’s pretty well-known by now that Protestants removed 7 books.

            I don’t agree with nearly everything the pope says. Some of his comments on homosexuality I find particularly appalling and have no place in the 21st century. But I would never say he’s not a Christian leader. Of course he is.

          • disqus_LonesomeDove

            The Latin Vulgate includes the Apocrypha which the KJV rejects. They never added anything to, nor took anything away from MY Bible, so your question is nonsensical.
            Let me give you an example of ‘why’ I say it’s nonsensical……and try to stick with me here……

            We have a Constitution and France has a different Constitution (ya with me so far?), so it’s nonsensical to ask a question like “Are you going to now tell me that the French added amendments to the Constitution?”

            And it would be even more nonsensical to claim…..as pertaining to this example (ya still with me?)…..
            “I think it’s pretty well-known by now that Americans removed 7 amendments.”

            This is called an…..a-n-a-l-o-g-y. I’m not actually claiming that you said anything about Constitutions. Are we clear on this?
            I hope so.
            I doubt it, but I hope so.

            Now……….YOU don’t have to claim that the pope is not a Christian leader if you so choose. That is your privilege and I don’t care, but I choose my own leaders thanks…..and he’s not mine.
            My leader is Christ. The only world leader we were ever meant to have.

            You have no reason to expect me to accept his greatness anymore than I would have a reason to expect the left to accept Ronald Reagan’s greatness.

            Oh…..and if you find some of his comments on homosexuality particularly appalling then you must be what the left calls a homophobe because, when asked about it, he said “Who am I to judge?”
            Now understand this……I’m not arguing the mortality or immorality of homosexuality here. I’m just saying that it looks like you don’t know the man as well as you claim to know him.

            He has also authorized Islamic prayers and readings from the Quran at the Vatican for the first time ever. The Quran denies the deity of Christ and the Crucifixion of Christ on the cross.

            You can have francis as your leader. I’ll pass thanks.
            ;-D

          • disqus_LonesomeDove

            The Latin Vulgate includes the Apocrypha which the KJV rejects. They never added anything to, nor took anything away from MY Bible, so your question is nonsensical.
            Let me give you an example of ‘why’ I say it’s nonsensical……and try to stick with me here……

            We have a Constitution and France has a different Constitution (ya with me so far?), so it’s nonsensical to ask a question like “Are you going to now tell me that the French added amendments to the Constitution?”

            And it would be even more nonsensical to claim…..as pertaining to this example (ya still with me?)…..that Americans removed anything since they’re two different things.

            This is called an…..a-n-a-l-o-g-y. I’m not actually claiming that you said anything about Constitutions. Are we clear on this?
            I hope so.
            I doubt it, but I hope so.

            Now……….YOU don’t have to claim that the pope is not a Christian leader if you so choose. That is your privilege and I don’t care, but I choose my own leaders thanks…..and he’s not mine.
            My leader is Christ. The only world leader we were ever meant to have.

            You have no reason to expect me to accept the pope’s greatness anymore than I would have a reason to expect the left to accept Ronald Reagan’s greatness.

            Oh…..and if you find some of his comments on homosexuality particularly appalling then you must be what the left calls a homophobe because, when asked about it, he said “Who am I to judge?”
            Now understand this……I’m not arguing the mortality or immorality of homosexuality here. I’m just saying that it looks like you don’t know the man as well as you claim to know him.

            He has also authorized Islamic prayers and readings from the Quran at the Vatican for the first time ever. The Quran denies the deity of Christ and the Crucifixion of Christ on the cross.

            You can have francis as your leader. I’ll pass thanks.
            ;-D

          • disqus_LonesomeDove

            On the phone. I’ll deal with you later.

          • disqus_LonesomeDove

            Fundies????

            And you accuse ME of having an attitude?

            LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Ronald Carter

            You’re being very fundamentalist in your insistence that there are fundamentalist atheists, which is absurd. It’s been pointed out to you that there are no “degrees” of atheism, either you are or you aren’t, but you waved it away even though it’s a simple and straightforward fact. We see “weak” and “strong” Christians based on the degree to which they adhere to the Bible and church teachings, but being an atheist is simply a light switch that is either in the “on” or the “off” position. So you are incorrect. And “fundie” is common slang for fundamentalist Christian so I don’t know what you are LOLing about.

          • disqus_LonesomeDove

            It’s been pointed out to me????
            You’re the only one pointing anything out, and who are you but just another opinionated atheist fundie.

            You’re being very fundamentalist in your insistence that there are no fundamentalist atheists, which is absurd. It’s been pointed out to you (LOL) that there ARE indeed “degrees” of atheism, but you waved it away even though it’s a simple and straightforward fact. We see “weak” and “strong” atheists based on the degree to which they adhere to their fundamentalist atheism and teachings from Hitchens…………..and being an atheist IS INDEED simply a light switch that is either in the “on” or the “off” position depending on how well it suits your argument at the moment.
            So you are incorrect. And “fundie” is an ‘uncommon’ but very accurate slang for fundamentalist atheists which you don’t like when it’s done to you, right?

            How do your own words taste now?

          • Ronald Carter

            There is no such thing as an “atheist fundie” because there are no fundamentals to atheism.

            There are no degrees of atheism. If you believe in a higher power, you are a theist. If you don’t, you are an atheist. It could not be a simpler concept, so I’m not sure why you are struggling with it.

            Hitchens is not the spokesman for atheism. Indeed, there is no equivalent to a holy book or holy man in atheism further making your comparison absurd.

            You’re comparing apples to oranges. It’s not my own words you are feeding to me but a bizarre twist on simple logic and facts.

          • disqus_LonesomeDove

            I didn’t say there were fundamentals (noun) to atheism. I said atheists are fundamentalist (adjective) in their beliefs as absolute truth.

            The degrees of atheism range from ‘agnostic’…who doesn’t know and doesn’t care….to hard core atheist, who claims to know for a fact and seeks out anyone who believes otherwise because he can’t live and let live.

            Your own belief isn’t strong enough to stand on its own merit. You have to fight and re-fight the battle almost every day in order to justify your unproven disbelief in a God whom…..if you knew existed……you would have to become accountable to Him, and you’re too weak to turn away from a lifestyle you know He does not condone.

            This is also a simple concept, but I do know why you are struggling with it. Biblical concepts leave atheists behind like they were dragging ten anchors in a boat race.

            Apples and oranges are both round, unlike your head.

          • Ronald Carter

            There is only one way to be an atheist. There are many degrees of strength/weakness to how a person can be a theist. I wouldn’t call that “fundamentalist”. The word suggests a firm hold on a belief implying that there can be other less firm beliefs. With atheism, which I’ve compared to a light switch, it’s on or off. You’re now saying that if it’s in the “on” position, a person is fundamentalist. It doesn’t work that way.

            Agnostics are not as you say. They don’t know but they can certainly care. Agnosticism isn’t about not being able to make up your mind. Agnosticism is a belief that the truth cannot be known. That it is not knowable. Gnosticism is about knowledge. Theism is about belief.

            My belief is what it is and just fine and I’m able to defend it. I’m honest enough to say when things aren’t knowable. “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer and so many of you seem to take it as a sign of weakness. You’re telling me I’m too weak to turn away from a lifestyle some unknown God doesn’t condone. Two problems there – I have no idea what “lifestyle” you’re talking about – I’m not homosexual, I have a wife and two children – and I’m not turning away from a God I never acknowledged was there in the first place.

            I told you before I’m not an atheist. True enough – I’m not. But I’m not going to be arrogant and tell you what form God takes. I think the God of the Bible is as unlikely a scenario as one you’re going to find, and I base that on the fact that the Bible was written by human beings. They claim to be speaking for God but that’s an easy claim to make and impossible to prove.

            People like to speak on God’s behalf. Especially theists. Ever notice that?

          • disqus_LonesomeDove

            All you’re doing is bypassing/ignoring everything I say. You want me to read and seriously consider everything you post, while you will never give serious consideration to any thought that doesn’t parallel your own.
            So typical of the atheist who claims the moral and intellectual high ground without basing it on any authority.

            The lifestyle I speak of is one where your morals are whatever you want them to be at the moment. Whatever suits your purpose, because you have no moral authority. You can say what you want,…..do what you want,….participate in whatever you want…..nothing is wrong………whereas God gives Commandments, and I’ve never met an atheist who likes those.

            You are an atheist. It’s a religion to you even though you will run from that description faster than a leftist runs from a fact. If it were not, you wouldn’t waste your time defending atheism, or starting a discussion challenging Christians.

            Not only has the SCOTUS ruled that it’s a religion in agreement with an atheist who brought it to their attention, but the only people who do what you do are atheists angry that, not only can Christians not prove God, but neither can they prove otherwise.

            Have I noticed that people like to speak on God’s behalf? Yes, nearly every atheist I’ve ever debated never fails to toss out a scripture they completely misunderstand….after which they say what you just did.

          • Ronald Carter

            I’m not bypassing anything you’re saying, but I AM disagreeing with it, there’s simply no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist. You’ve taken a valid criticism of fundamentalist Christianity and attempted to turn it upside down and fire it back, and it doesn’t work, for the simple reason that you cannot be a fundamentalist when you simply refuse to believe in something.

            I’m not claiming any higher ground, and the “authority” you speak of simply doesn’t exist for me and many others. You’re demanding that I bow down to your God and I don’t simply disbelieve in that God, I think if it existed I’d be scornful of it.

            SCOTUS – source please. Let’s see what you’re talking about.

            No, “every atheist” you’ve ever debated were not speaking on God’s behalf. The fact they don’t believe in God is what makes them atheists. See how it works? As for scripture, what version are you using? There are several, you know. Meaning most of them are wrong. Did you choose the one true correct one, which most fundamentalists will insist is the KJV version?

          • disqus_LonesomeDove

            You’re bypassing it. Your disagreement comes in the form of missing my points or ignoring them altogether.

            I’ll use your logic and claim that you hate me, and that atheism is hatred.

            And I never said “every” atheist I’ve ever debated was speaking on God’s behalf. I said nearly every atheist.

            Now, when you decide to quote me honestly, we can continue.

          • Ronald Carter

            I have met every one of your points head-on. I challenge you to find an instance where I didn’t.

            Atheism isn’t hatred. Atheism would never tell an entire group of oppressed people (homosexuals) that God hates them and they’re unrepentant sinners who are going to hell. YOUR group does that – would you like proof? – and that’s why so many of us don’t embrace your brand of Christianity.

            How can EVEN ONE atheist be speaking on God’s behalf? How?

          • Charles

            So what’s the number for Non-Christians?

          • Eye Offend

            Figure it out Chucky. You’re a big boy. If not, maybe ask your mommy to help you Google.

        • Ronald Carter

          THAT – is the No True Scotsman fallacy. To the absolute LETTER.
          For years I’m sure you upheld Josh Duggar as the model Christian, but the second he gets implicated in something unsavory, you say he wasn’t and isn’t a Christian. What definition of Christian are you using?

          • Amos Moses

            LOL!

        • Peter Leh

          “I’m not sure he’s a Christian.”

          lol

          of course he is not a christian. Christians dont rape, kill, enslave, kill abortion doctors, molest kids, lie, cheat,

          in other words….. Christians dont sin.

          come on bottom line… we got just as many ne’er do wells in our camp struggling and wrestling over “being good” and “holy” as anyone else.

    • Jalapeno

      Why is your interpretation of the Bible better than theirs?

      It’s not uncommon to believe that the Bible speaks out against many other things instead of consensual, adult, homosexual relationships. There’s no reason why YOUR interpretation is right and theirs is wrong.

      • Charles

        That’s not just my interpretation.. No serious scholar is going to interpret it that way. I agree with you as far as other sins.. Idolatry, covetousness, pride. If one wishes to have those relationships. That’s up to them of course.. But don’t claim the Bible is somehow ok with it.. It’s not.

        • Jalapeno

          A lot of people interpret it that way..and a lot of churches and pastors feel that way.

          What makes you better than them? What makes them wrong and you right?

          • Charles

            The Holy Bible tell them they are wrong..

          • Jalapeno

            And they say the bible makes you wrong. Funny how that works.

          • Charles

            You have that option to feel that way.. But you can’t claim that that the Lord hasn’t warned you about it when the day comes..

          • Jalapeno

            Are you intentionally ignoring the point?

          • Charles

            It’s wrong according to the Bible.. If they are claiming the Bible lines up with something else on these issues? That just means they want to justify their sins.. Many do. The Lord told us that in his Word remember.. They turn truth into a lie. Dangerous to ones spirit.

          • Jalapeno

            Maybe the bible lines up with their views and you just want to justify your bigotry.

          • Charles

            I’m explaining to you what the Word of the Lord Jesus Christ says. Many don’t like it because they wish to continue in their sin.. People certainly have that option.. But you can’t say “I Love You Lord”, Oh, but by the way I’m really proud to be a homosexual.. Do you REALLY think the Lord is going to buy that excuse? The Lord softens your heart up.. You do not wish to involve yourself in those sins anymore, and if you slip you feel terrible.. You are not the same person you were before.

          • Jalapeno

            I’m explaining that they think that it says something different. For instance, they don’t think Sodom and Gomorrah was about homosexuality itself, and they think that it was part of God’s intention to make them gay.

            So.. What makes you the arbiter of what’s correct?

          • Charles

            There was more going in Sodom & Gomorrah than JUST homosexual behavior. But it’s interesting that it’s pointed out. Just like today, there’s plenty of sins to go around so to speak. Homosexuality is NEVER talked about in a positive light. So I don’t know how they could come to that conclusion. UNLESS trying to justify it. God made man and woman to be joined.. God is wanting to pull you away from sin, not into it!

          • Jalapeno

            The fact that something isn’t talked about in a positive light doesn’t mean it’s prohibited.

            So.. They have decent reasoning behind their stance. Who are you to say you know better?

          • Charles

            Well.. Like I said.. Believe what you want.. Up to you.. But that isn’t what the Bible says.. Anyone with any discernment at all will know that. It’s called an Abomination..I wouldn’t assume the Lord is going to look past it.

          • Jalapeno

            They think it IS what the Bible says.

            It’s especially hilarious because you’re saying that a loving God would punish them for following his word how they think it goes and loving someone, but you’ll get rewarded for turning your interpretation to hate, bigotry and judgement.

          • Charles

            Joh 16:13-14 KJV
            (13) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
            (14) He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

            Mar 4:11-12 KJV
            (11) And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
            (12) That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

          • Jalapeno

            So.. You think that you’re the one who speaks truth and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

          • Charles

            ” You think that you’re the one who speaks truth and anyone who disagrees is wrong”.

            The Lord speaks truth..

          • Jalapeno

            Through the Bible, right?

            And..people decide what that “truth” is through what the Bible says..right?

          • Charles

            No. God choses whom he shows the Word to.. Did you not read the verses above? That’s why so many can read and not understand a word of it, or care and for others it’s the Light of the World.

          • Jalapeno

            There you go. You’re getting close to admitting it. You think that YOU’RE one of the special people that actually understands it, and assume that everyone else is wrong.

          • Charles

            Obviously the Lord choses many.. You are making the assumption that everyone agrees with you.. Which of course, they don’t. So…..

            Joh 10:1-4 MKJV
            (1) Truly, truly, I say to you, He who does not enter into the sheepfold by the door, but going up by another way, that one is a thief and a robber.
            (2) But he who enters in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
            (3) The doorkeeper opens to him, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
            (4) And when he puts forth his own sheep, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him. For they know his voice.

          • Jalapeno

            Nope..not making that assumption at all.

            I’m pointing out that some people think that the Bible leads to one thing, and other people think that it leads someplace else. You don’t have any grounds to say that they’re wrong and you’re right.

          • Charles

            Obviously, not a new concept.

            Gal 1:6-12 KJV
            (6) I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
            (7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
            (8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
            (9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
            (10) For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
            (11) But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
            (12) For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

          • Jalapeno

            And..you’re assuming that YOU’RE the one who has it right, and you’re assuming that the people who GENUINELY believe that the Bible says something different are going to be punished.

          • Charles

            Mat 22:14 KJV
            (14) For many are called, but few are chosen.

          • Jalapeno

            And you assume that YOU are chosen and THEY are not.

          • Charles

            I am with the Lord Jesus Christ.. That’s correct.. You forget yourself.. Wasn’t always so.. I was peculiarly stubborn. I was there.. My issue wasn’t Homosexuality, but I had (And still do, I have a long, long way to go) a whole box of problems and it doesn’t happen overnight. But the Lord has brought peace to my spirit. I was a tortured soul.. I really was.

          • Jalapeno

            “I am with the Lord Jesus Christ”

            Okay..you just aren’t understanding the point then.

          • Charles

            I’m not assuming anything.. According to the Words of our Lord.. If we acknowledge The Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God. If we walk in the ways of the Lord via our Holy Bible (Life’s Instruction manual) he would deliver us. That’s what he’s done for me. Can only speak for myself on that. You want acceptance for sin… Not acceptable.

          • Jalapeno

            “You want acceptance for sin… Not acceptable.”

            You aren’t even capable of respecting other peoples personal beliefs, eh?

          • Charles

            Like I said.. Believe what you want..

          • Jalapeno

            Obviously..and you’re obviously going to believe what you want. Too bad respect isn’t a thing you care about.

          • Charles

            “You aren’t even capable of respecting other peoples personal beliefs, eh”?

            “Too bad respect isn’t a thing you care about”.

            Well.. It’s funny you mention that. Because it seems more like YOU are the one disrespecting the Christian Faith on here. You people think you are going to change the hearts and minds of God’s people.. But you won’t.

          • Jalapeno

            ” You people think you are going to change the hearts and minds of God’s people”

            You’re assuming that people actually care about what people believe.

            They usually don’t. I couldn’t care less. What matters is being respectful with those beliefs…not refusing service, not trying to keep other people from following their own beliefs…

          • Charles

            “You’re assuming that people actually care about what people believe”.

            Well if people didn’t care why push the Homosexual agenda in the churches, schools, public office? On people who aren’t homosexual? Obviously, that’s not a accurate statement.

          • Jalapeno

            “Well if people didn’t care why push the Homosexual agenda in the churches, schools, public office?”

            You mean the ‘respect people regardless of their sexual orientation’ “agenda”?

          • Charles

            You mean the ‘respect people regardless of their sexual orientation’ “agenda”?

            You don’t mean respect.. You mean ACCEPT.

          • Jalapeno

            Nah, most people don’t actually care if you’re okay with it. I mean exactly what I said.

          • Charles

            If you’re OK with it.. That’s your choice.. The Lord isn’t “OK” with it.. Neither am I.

          • Jalapeno

            Sure, sure.

            Some people think that the Bible suggests that homosexuality is okay though. Why would you be so disrespectful to them?

          • Charles

            I’m sure there are plenty of forums that agree with just that lie. I’m sure they would welcome it. Because I know it’s a sin.. It’s in God’s Word. Some will seek out the Lord, and will be set free…

            Joh 17:16-19 KJV
            (17) Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
            (18) As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
            (19) And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

          • Jalapeno

            What makes yours the truth and theirs the lie?

          • Charles

            It’s not my truth.. It’s God’s Truth.

          • Jalapeno

            What makes your interpretation of it better than theirs?

          • Charles

            Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. To read and understand the Bible you are required to have faith. If you have faith, you will believe in the Word. If you believe in the Word, you will understand the Word. If you don’t believe you won’t understand. That was by design.

          • Jalapeno

            And.. What about the people who have faith in the word but disagree with you?

          • Charles

            Christians don’t always agree on everything.. That is why we need to correct each other according to the Word. But we aren’t talking about predestination here, or “Outer Darkness”, we are talking about Homosexuality.

          • Jalapeno

            Yes..people disagree on how homosexuality should be treated.

            You’re assuming that your interpretation is correct. I’m thinking you’re just not understanding what I’m saying though…oh well.

          • Ronald Carter

            I’m really curious, how do you react when you are “corrected” by another Christian? Why do I have a feeling it is more an issue of you both insisting you’re correct and the other person is wrong (and probably deceived by Satan)? Christian disagreements are very predictable things.

          • Charles

            Well, like I said. There are things we don’t %100 agree on.. But Homosexuality isn’t one of them.

          • meamsane

            What does it matter what “some people think” as opposed to what “and other people think”? Since both cannot be right, What really matters is that you personally come to a conclusion based upon your own investigation of the matter as to who has the correct view. Afterall, you are the one that is going to be judged by it!

          • Jalapeno

            You’re right..it doesn’t matter.

            It becomes an issue when people try to use their interpretation to dictate the actions that other people can take, and refuse to be respectful of other peoples beliefs.

          • Amos Moses

            Again…………. if they are “interpreting” ………. then it ceases to be scripture ……..

          • Jalapeno

            You’re interpreting it to mean one thing.

            They interpret it to mean another.

          • Amos Moses

            And AGAIN ………….. if they are “interpreting” ………. then it ceases to be scripture ……..

          • Gena B

            Christians are talking about actual interpretation of the truth of the way the author intended, (from Hebrew, Greek, etc..) When you say ‘interpreting’ understand this should not be about what we ‘want’ to believe from personal desires or interests, or even what other people have told us. There is only one interpretation if you understand meanings behind the original languages, and that is where you will find the truth.

          • Jalapeno

            “There is only one interpretation if you understand meanings behind the original languages, and that is where you will find the truth.”

            Yet…there are dozens of different ways that people understand the “meaning” behind the original languages, dozens of DIFFERENT truths that people claim they see.

            Therefore, it’s an interpretation.

      • Amos Moses

        Why is yours ………………

        • Jalapeno

          Never said it was.

    • Ronald Carter

      You don’t know that he’s not a Christian.

      • mlathim

        Define Christian

        • Ronald Carter

          The dictionary definition works just fine for me:
          “a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.”
          Note: No mention of homosexuality in the definition of Christian. Which leads me to believe that it’s not relevant.

          • Amos Moses

            “adherent of Christianity.”

            So being an “adherent” would exclude homosexuals ………….. as christianity and scripture overtly name it as such ………… excluded ………… thanks for your agreement …………….

          • Ronald Carter

            No, Amos, that’s nuts. A homosexual can be “a person who believes in Jesus Christ.”

          • Amos Moses

            No …………….. if he is a homosexual …. and does not believe it is a SIN…… and he not only continues in that SIN …………. but thinks a “marriage” to another homosexual will “fix it” ……….. then he believes in another Christ ……. an antichrist ……….. and is NOT a christian ….. and anyone who tells them that it is okay to do what he is doing ………. is not a christian ………

          • Ronald Carter

            So what is it with you and homosexuals, Amos? Why is that the one unforgivable “sin” to you? It can’t be THAT bad if it didn’t even make the top ten (commandments)…

          • Amos Moses

            So what is it with you and homosexuals, Ronnie?

            It is forgivable ………….. IF the person acknowledges it AS SIN ………………. BUT they do not ………. they want to “get married” …………… and deny it as SIN ………… and think Christ will look the other way ………… as you seem to think He will ………….. Sorry, does not work that way ……………..

          • ter ber

            God’s Word says even the demons believe and tremble. That’s why Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ says you must be Born Again.

          • Ronald Carter

            You can be homosexual and be “born again” too.

          • Amos Moses

            Uh ………….. No …………. you cannot ………. that would be a false convert ..

          • Ronald Carter

            That’s not your call, Amos. You aren’t God. Just because you disapprove doesn’t make it officially “false”. You put a lot of stock in your own opinion.

          • Amos Moses

            Yes ……. it is our call ……….. and scripture says so ………. 1 Corinthians 5 & 6 ………….. It is the body of Christ ……….. and like any body ……. it can determine when DISEASE is present and when it is healthy ………….. and when it should be excised ……….

          • Ronald Carter

            And in that one message the No True Scotsman fallacy comes out in spades. You and whatever denomination you follow are the true Scotsmen, I mean Christians, and everyone else is deceived and “diseased”.

            You don’t know God and don’t speak for God, Amos. You’re just one kind of fundamentalist in a sea of them, guessing that you’re doing what God wants.

          • Amos Moses

            “No True Scotsman fallacy comes out in spades”

            Again the fallacy of the No True Scotsman fallacy …………………

          • Ronald Carter

            Except that it isn’t, Amos. Everything you proclaim here comes down to one thing – you are trying to speak for God, but you’re not him. And all those OTHER Christian groups, like the ones who don’t want to kill homosexuals, are evil.

          • Amos Moses

            Except it has no place in a discussion of christianity…..

          • Amos Moses

            No,,,,,, they are apostate ………… and i do not want to kill homosexuals either ………. but they want them dead by not telling them the truth ………… and you do not want to tell them the truth either ……… and so you want them dead …….

          • Ronald Carter

            No Amos, I don’t want homosexuals dead, I want bigots to leave them alone because they have that right.

          • Amos Moses

            “Everything you proclaim here comes down to one thing – you are trying to speak for God,”

            No………. God has ALREADY SPOKEN ……… i am just repeating it …….. and it hurts your ears to hear the truth ……….

          • Ronald Carter

            You’re not repeating what God has said, you’re giving us your interpretation. Just like everyone has an interpretation.

          • ShemSilber

            Yes, it IS possible for one who is a homosexual to believe that the Master Yahushua (Lord Jesus) is the Redeemer that we need to save us from our sins. If that person is indeed saved, then, even as some have forsaken drunkenness or sleeping around or thievery, the homosexual will become aware that homosexuality is a character flaw that will not be allowed in the Kingdom of Yahuwah, and he/she will become an overcomer of that character flaw that flies in the face of the Creator’s purpose in making us male and female. There have been people saved even who were mired in Islamic terrorism who have chosen the Master Yahushua upon seeing that He is the only door from this mortality to immortality in the Kingdom of Yahuwah. See Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and also 1Corinthians 6:9-11, and know that we ALL have sins to overcome, and ALL of us were saved while still IN those sins, but then we have to ask the Master to strengthen us against those sins, so as to grow, even as a baby grows in the womb, overcoming our sins, until He calls us to His presence. Those character flaws, including homosexuality, will be cleansed out of us as the Master makes us fit for His Kingdom, omein.

          • Ronald Carter

            It’s really time that people stopped expecting homosexuals to be anything other than what they are. They cannot change, so stop expecting them to suddenly be attracted to the opposite sex. They cannot live loveless and sexless lives either because that is cruel and heartless.

          • ShemSilber

            Who’s expecting homosexuals to change? Nevertheless, the Apostle Paul wrote in 1Corinthians 6:9-11 concerning this and the other character flaws that he pointed out would keep people out of Yahuwah’s Kingdom: “…and such WERE some of you, but you are WASHED…” In other words, some HAD indeed changed through the power of our Master Yahushua (Lord Jesus) working in their lives.

            So, if you want to be in the Kingdom and not to be cast out, Yahuwah has not laid anything on you that’s too heavy for the Master Yahushua and you to manage. Some have repented and changed from their perversions, and it’s possible for you, too. Therefore it’s up to you to go to Him for help, or else just keep going the way you are and remain mortal, which means your existence will end and not be everlasting. That would be a sad way to go, but it’s your choice, in the Name of the Master Yahushua, omein.

            Blessed are all those who find life in Yahuwah, in the Name of the Master Yahushua, omein!

          • mlathim

            I thought it might. But sense the dictionary is not deciding who gets in to Heaven then I will go with the Bibles definition and it says they are spending eternity in hell; that indicates to me that he and they are not going to make it. That is what counts.

          • Ronald Carter

            You are using the wrong tool for the wrong purpose. The dictionary is what we use to get word definitions, not the Bible. Just like you wouldn’t open your Joy of Cooking book to find out something geographical from an encyclopedia.

            By the way, you’re mistaken. The Bible says nothing about homosexuals not being Christians by anyone’s definition, let alone burning in hell. The burning in hell stuff gets old real fast…if you want Christianity to be taken seriously and not a paranoid revenge fantasy against people you choose to hate, you might consider a new tack.

          • mlathim

            No you’re not understanding or you chose not to. The Dictionary
            does not decide who is and who is not a Christian. God does that so the Dictionary
            definition is useless.

            And as long as you are trying to set up strawmen arguments
            then you are wasting mine and yours time. And I have much more important things
            to other then teaching you theology.

          • Ronald Carter

            A dictionary will tell you that a Christian is a person who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Bible contains those teachings. It is as simple as that. If you state otherwise you are being dishonest. Nowhere in either book is homosexuality conditional on a person’s Christianity. It is in no sense related to the definition of what it means to be a Christian.

          • Peter Leh

            since you are not a dictionary nor god….

          • Amos Moses

            No ………… but we are to judge who is and who is not and are given FULL AUTHORITY to do so ………. By Scripture …………… 1 Corinthians 5 & 6 ……

          • Peter Leh

            keep playing “church”, bro amos

          • Amos Moses

            Keep pretending your a “conservative christian” …………… but you don’t fool me ……. nor too many other true christians …………

    • Robo Man

      I hate to break it to you but there are plenty of gay christians

      • mlathim

        gay Christians is an oxymoron there is no such thing. The Bible says so.

        • Peter Leh

          so is a FAT christian.

          gluttons are not allowed in heaven either

          • mlathim

            And where does it say that? I think you are confusing sin with Sinner. Sinners commit sin but they are forgiven and strive not to commit the sin again. Repeating the sin over and over does not make you forgiven it just makes you a sinner that needs to repent.

          • Peter Leh

            gluttony is a sin… we can obviously see who the gluttons are.

            can we “continue to sin that grace may abound?” (Paul is asking a rhetorical question here… no need to answer)

            Either we all struggle and trust god…. or we get it ALL together before we die.

            IF there can be glutton christians there can be gay christians. IF there is no such thing as a gay christian… you better be kicking all the fat people out of your church.

            we all struggle.. it is god we trust.

          • mlathim

            Since you do not have a medical degree and therefore assume
            that every FAT person is a glutton I will leave you with this.

            (Mat 7:1-5) “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

            As for the standard by which I judge a homosexual it is an abomination
            to God where Gluttony is only a sin and God has never destroyed and place because they people were fat. However he has destroyed 2 cities for Homosexuality. Sodom
            and Gomorrah

          • Peter Leh

            “Since you do not have a medical degree and therefore assume
            that every FAT person is a glutton I will leave you with this.”

            lol… i do not disclose personal info for a reason. i assure you… you do not know me. 🙂

            “However he has destroyed 2 cities for Homosexuality.”

            I assume you have theological degree? Then tell me what ezekiel said about ” your sister sodom”?

          • Amos Moses

            Tell us what Jude said …………… oh, here it is ………

            1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
            1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
            1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

            1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
            1:8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

            Or how about Peter ………. oh, here it is ………….

            2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
            2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
            2:8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

            But fine ………. lets look at Ezekiel ……….

            16:56 For thy sister Sodom was not mentioned by thy mouth in the day of thy pride,
            16:57 Before thy wickedness was discovered, as at the time of thy reproach of the daughters of Syria, and all that are round about her, the daughters of the Philistines, which despise thee round about.
            16:58 Thou hast borne thy lewdness and thine abominations, saith the LORD.

            So we have them showing their PRIDE …………. in their LEWDNESS and WICKEDNESS and their ABOMINATION ……………. Sound Familiar ………. Like a certain group TODAY ………. do you REALLY think God destroyed S&G for being “inhospitable” ………. is that the capriciousness you choose to ascribe to God/Christ ……………

            And do you call yourself a “conservative christian” on that basis ……….

          • Peter Leh

            still looking for that verse….

    • Peter Leh

      BUS 101…. if you provide a service for one group you provide the service for all.

      This “business” was not a religious corporation, Like The hitching Post in Idaho, OR a 501C3 like a church. They are a corporation, most likely, open to the public and therefore fall under public accommodation laws of that state.

      • Michex

        So if a female prostitute (in a state where it is legal) offers her services (a business) to men, she must also offer them to women, such that she will be forced to have homosexual sex.
        That is what you are saying about businesses.
        And if the prostitute offers her services to a 21 year old man, then she must also have sex with a 103 year old man who wants it, because otherwise you would claim that’s “age discrimination.”
        That’s where your logic leads.
        Must an artist who draws pictures of naked women also be forced to draw naked men?

        • Peter Leh

          “That is what you are saying about businesses.”

          you worried about the prostitutes and equal protection? 🙂

    • disqus_LonesomeDove

      Not only that, but there are many gay dating sites. Those sites started somehow, so it makes one wonder why they won’t start a gay Christian dating site instead of picking on Christian Mingle?

  • 201821208 :)

    “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” Rom. 1:26-27

    • Eye Offend

      “When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand.” Deuteronomy 25:11-12

      • TheBottomline4This

        What is your point in sharing this verse offended one?

        • Eye Offend

          “If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.” Deuteronomy 22:28-29

          • TheBottomline4This

            What is your point in sharing this verse offended one?

          • Eye Offend

            “And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee” Deuteronomy 28:53

          • TheBottomline4This

            Can’t answer can ya…LOL.

          • Eye Offend

            Unable to read between the lines there Sparky? Tinfoil hat fitting a little tight tonight cupcake?

            Figure it out yourself ..

          • TheBottomline4This

            Again, you’re not being clever at all cherry picker.

          • Eye Offend

            Far more than you will ever know.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Wrong disgusted Solomon Burke.

          • Eye Offend

            How’s the weather in Central Florida ?

          • TheBottomline4This

            the weather in FL is pretty good overall. Thanks for asking!!

          • Guest

            Uh, no. Here’s the real translation:” If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”

            It’s not referring to rape. It’s referring to men who think they can lightly sleep with a woman, lead her on, and have no consequences for it. God is saying that the man must take care of the woman her whole life long and not abuse her. That protects women, not like the anything-go attitude towards women we have today.

    • Becky

      Amen. When these things occur it reminds me of Lot who was so terribly oppressed by their filthy conduct and daily tormented by their lawless deeds (2Peter2:6-8).

      • David&Jonathan

        You are quoting out of context. S&G was about greed, inhospitality and grave injustice…. Homosexuality was never part of that story, unless the RCC made it so in 390 after christ.

        • Amos Moses

          WRONG …………..

          Tell us what Jude said …………… oh, here it is ………
          1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
          1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
          1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
          1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
          1:8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

          Or how about Peter ………. oh, here it is ………….
          2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
          2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
          2:8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

          But ………. lets look at Ezekiel ……….
          16:56 For thy sister Sodom was not mentioned by thy mouth in the day of thy pride,
          16:57 Before thy wickedness was discovered, as at the time of thy reproach of the daughters of Syria, and all that are round about her, the daughters of the Philistines, which despise thee round about.
          16:58 Thou hast borne thy lewdness and thine abominations, saith the LORD.

          So we have them showing their PRIDE …………. in their LEWDNESS and WICKEDNESS and their ABOMINATION ……………. Sound Familiar ………. Like a certain group TODAY ………. do you REALLY think God destroyed S&G for being “inhospitable” ……….

          • David&Jonathan

            Jude speaks about strange flesh: the flesh of strangers. From Judges 19& 20 we know that it doesn’t matter that this flesh of strangers is of the same sex or the opposite sex. The result is the same too. City destroyed.
            I don’t read any reference to homosexuality in your reference to Peter.
            Ezekiel speaks about wickedness:
            Wickedness, is generally considered a synonym for evil or sinfulness. Among theologians and philosophers, it has the more specific meaning of evil committed consciously and of free will. Does not refer to homosexuality.
            And do you know how many different abominations are mentioned in the bible? No reference to homosexuality.

            Zero points for you my friend…

          • Amos Moses

            Jude speaks of FORNICATION and men who crept in unawares who are “FILTHY DREAMERS”.

            “Wickedness, is generally considered a synonym for evil or sinfulness. Among theologians and philosophers, it has the more specific meaning of evil committed consciously and of free will”

            ……making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

            Which is exactly what homosexuals do ………… due to their fornication ………..

            “You are quoting out of context.” “Zero points for you my friend…”

            Yep you surely are …………. and you nailed yourself on that ……

          • David&Jonathan

            Again wrong.

            Fornication is generally consensual sexual intercourse between two people not married to each other.

            Homosexuals can marry these days, so fornication is no longer applicable…

            All again opinions and only prove of prejudice. No substantiations.

            Still zero points my friend…

          • Amos Moses

            “Fornication is generally consensual sexual intercourse between two people not married to each other.
            Homosexuals can marry these days, so fornication is no longer applicable…”

            Sorry ……….. who gave men ANY AUTHORITY to alter Gods word and His definition of what marriage is ……. and IS NOT …………….

            STILL FORNICATION ………. according to God and scripture …………

            FAIL ……………….

          • David&Jonathan

            Again wrong.

            Read up on the covenant between David & Jonathan. For which David left the house of his father and mother. Which is bible language (compare Genesis 2) for marriage… As confirmed later by Saul that he is his son in law twice after he marries his daughter as well.

            You miss the bigger picture of Christianity. You clearly don’t understand Matthew 22:40.
            There are two foundational commandments in the bible: Love God and Love your Neighbor. All other laws and commandments are derived from these two.
            Which means, if something does not violate these two commandments, it is not a sin at all.
            Homosexuality in itself doesn’t violate these commandments and therefore is not a sin.
            It becomes a sin in the context of Idolatry (Romans 1, Lev 18 & 20).

            Same when it comes to fornication. As all men and women were supposed to be married (except for the exceptions mentioned in matthew 19), fornication meant having sex with a women already married, or sex with a women not yet married. In the first case the property rights of the husband were violated (against the love your neighbor commandment) and in the second case the ownership rights of the father were violated (against the love your neighbor commandment). This is also the reason why their is no condemnation in Lev 18 & 20 for having sex with your own daughter, as it is considered stealing from yourself. Read up on the laws in the bible about the rape of a virgin girl. All consistent with this rational.

            Homosexuality has nothing to do with ownership rights, as there is no compromising of any family/inheritance lines involved as no offspring can be created. Therefore there is no payment of a dowry required (see again David & Jonathan), and no property rights violated. Hence no sinning against the love your neighbor commandment. So fornication as between men and women is not applicable to same sex sex.

            Another truth: Genesis 2 tells you that it is not good for a man to be alone. For this purpose God creates a fitting companion for the man. Now it is a biological/statistical fact that for every 100 women, 107 men are born. As God creates a fitting companion for every men, this already implies that for 7 out of 107 men, this means another men. and guess what 7/207 = 3.4%, not so far from the current day percentage of homosexuals of the total population.

            Face it. God made most men straight, and some gay (as Jesus confirms in Matthew 19), because his creation is about more than procreation only…

          • Amos Moses

            Please ………… David and Jonathan were not homosexuals ………….. have heard it all before ……….. LAME …………… FAIL ………………… Move along ……….

          • David&Jonathan

            That is your opinion, but you do not substantiate your opinion. Therefore …. Only prejudice.
            David might not have been 100% homosexual, but he was surely bisexual and was in a homosexual relationship with Jonathan.

          • Amos Moses

            “That is your opinion, but you do not substantiate your opinion. ”

            AND NEITHER DO YOU ……………………

          • Mary Lyons

            WOW!! How sad to see how warped your thinking is. God is right and true when He said through the Holy Spirit to Paul in Romans 1:19-32.

          • David&Jonathan

            I just explained to you the true meaning of Romans 1 in another post.

          • gramps675

            Still doesn’t mention homosexuality. Quit trying to make the Bible defend your discrimination.

          • Amos Moses

            Quit using the bible to justify SIN …………..

          • gramps675

            If homosexuality were a sin, you would have a point.

          • Amos Moses

            So show where it is not ………….

            Romans
            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:
            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.
            1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

            God gave them up to VILE AFFECTIONS ……… described as “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men ”

            Does not get more explicit than that …………

          • gramps675

            How can I show you where “it is not” when it is not mentioned?

          • Amos Moses

            I just showed you WHERE IT IS …………..

          • Amos Moses

            If you cannot show it ………… it does not exist ……….. that homosexuality is blessed ……….. no scripture ……….. no biblical support ……….. homosexuality as a sin ……….. Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-28, Jude 1:5-8, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ……………..

          • gramps675

            I can’t show that the Bible supports online evangelism, but it exists. Your argument is flawed seriously.

          • Amos Moses

            It does say homosexuality is a death sentence ………… it is SIN …… and the SCIENCE bears that out …………… evangelism is to spread the word …… as Christ said ……

            28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
            28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

            and EVERY NATION is online (well almost every) …………….. so FAIL …………. try again ……………….

          • gramps675

            Hmmmm, couldn’t find the word “online” anywhere in the Bible (just like the word “homosexuality”). Guess God does not want us to use the Internet to evangelize….. The FAIL is on you, friend.

          • Amos Moses

            “Hmmmm, couldn’t find the word “online””

            Could not find a lot of words in the bible …………. So What? ………… neither is garage door opener ……… again ………… So What?

          • Mary Lyons

            However, the word SIN is in the Bible, you are just playing on words, gramps and you know it, and if you don’t and truly believe what the devil is putting in your brain, you are what God calls a fool.

          • gramps675

            The Bible is all about words. You can’t discuss it without using “words.” Seriously.

          • Bill Scudder

            Now our getting ridiculous gramps

          • gramps675

            Nope, you are just avoiding dealing with the truth.

          • IzTheBiz

            pointless trying to argue with people whose minds are darkened. They choose the lie!

          • Amos Moses

            There are others who read and understand ……..

          • Bill Scudder

            Read Romans chapter one..

          • gramps675

            And?

          • muskyharry

            You Have to be kidding me, It also reads in the Bible “base fellows” aka Homosexuals!

          • gramps675

            No it doesn’t. Quit lying…

          • Chet

            How about the slugs stating that they desired to “know” them, the angelic visitors. Think they just wanted to make small talk or something…

          • gramps675

            Sorry, but I think if they meant “have sex” they would have said so….. God is not ambiguous.

          • Chet

            Sure your’re right cause the acceptable sex was recorded and focused on male and female, not man with man. Hence, the word s “know them” in this context. Please, let’s not debate. If you think homosexual relations are approved by the Almighty you are sadly deceived and as God is not in the deception business, that only leaves one other source – Satan, by name or the Devil, by position or authority. Hope this helps, gramps.

          • gramps675

            I’m sorry you have allowed your hate to cloud your spiritual interpretation.

          • Chet

            Don’t be sorry for me, gramps, for I have no hate, merely espousing what saith the Lord and sharing His truth. “Let God be true and every man a liar” Romans 3:4, Holy Bible. Besides, just as you, I’m accountable but to God alone, not any man… When one has the indwelling Holy Spirit, one can discern truth from error, or worse yet, lies, as espoused by the enemy and grand deceiver of all mankind, the Devil and his own…

          • gramps675

            Using God to justify hate does not change the fact that you are espousing hate. That’s just an excuse to help you sleep better.

          • Chet

            “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” II Timothy 2:15, Holy Bible. What I think is immaterial as is the opine of other men, sinners, just like me… The bottom line is that it is the Word of God that makes us all accountable, like it or no…

          • Chet

            “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” II Timothy 2:15, Holy Bible. What I think is immaterial as I’m only a sinner just like all other men. The bottom line is that it’s what saith the Lord that counts, period. And whether I happen to like something God has spoke about is of no difference as he doesn’t change to suit men. It’s we who must submit to him and the way to do so is via none other manner than his only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ of Calvary. As a regular guy, enjoying the sight of beautiful women, I might like to commit adultery and see if here’s possibly I can have my cake and eat it too. But there is absolutely no opportunity to do so without God seeing it as SIN, same as homosexuality, SIN, period. And the wages of SIN is death, eternal, in Hell. And no one, despite one’s particular gripping and enjoyable sin, has to go there, thanks entirely to Christ and Calvary…

          • gramps675

            I am not doubting God, just your justification of His scripture so you may continue hating those you do not understand. Its that simple.

          • Chet

            Respectfully, gramps, then try reading his Word your own self and plug your ears of any other sinner-man’s sharing of the Holy Bible .with you. After praying and asking the Lord’s guidance into all truth, read up on all the various sexual SINS then share your position with Him, alone. That way you can settle it in your own heart and prepare yourself for life and ultimately, its end and what comes thereafter. This post ends my sharing and reading of your comments. God bless you in your search for His truth.

          • gramps675

            Thank you.

        • Chet

          While the angelic guests were in Lot’s home, those slugs outside were not interested in money, justice or hospitality, but, rather the abomination of sexual acts with the men. So much so that even when stricken blind they wearied themselves still trying to get in and have their way with them. You might try actually reading the account yourself… Sexual SIN is just that, SIN, be it fornication, adultery or the abomination of homosexuality.

          • David&Jonathan

            Rape is sexual sin. You might want to read judges 19&20. Same story, same outcome… City destroyed. But this time it is a woman that gets raped. Is heterosexual sex now sin as well?
            Rape of strangers as the ultimate form of inhospitality is a huge sin. Homosexuality has nothing to do with it…

          • Chet

            The crime of rape falls under the sin heading of fornication and adultery. Heterosexual sexual activities outside the boundary of marriage are sin indeed. Homosexual activity is abomination. Nevertheless, sin is sin and all us sinners can be forgiven and our lives transformed by the Lord Jesus Christ of Calvary… Try as one might, no one can justify sin regardless of one’s preference for a particular preferred activity…

          • David&Jonathan

            Abomination is a semi translation of the original word Toevah. Many times used in the bible, all within the context of idolatry. You base yourself on lev 18&20. Ever thought about the reason why child sacrifice for Molech is in the same chapter as all sexual “sins”? Ever asked yourself why sex with a woman during her period is a huge sin under lev 18&20, while not at all under lev 15:24? It is all about the context. Almost all theologicans agree that lev 18&20 doesnt condem homosexual sex. Only homosexual sex within the context of idolatry as molech worshipping. Which was all about child sacrifice by trowing your first born (seed) trough the fires of molech, ans fertility rituals where everybody had sex with everybody. Outside that context homosexuality has never been a sin. And how could it be, as it does not violate the commandments love god and love your neighbor. And matthew 22:40 teaches you that if something doesnt violate these two commandments, it is not a sin.

          • Chet

            Friend, all men are sinners and as such we have a tendency to justify our pleasure, whatever it happens to be. With some it may be fornication, others stealing, still others, homosexuality. “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” II Timothy 2:15. One can no more find Holy God’s approval on homosexuality than one can with adultery. Sin is sin and there’s no biblical justification for such, none… Respectfully, and I end with this; Don’t be deceived into thinking God Almighty winks at sin of any sort…

          • David&Jonathan

            You assume that homosexuality is about pleasure only. That is where you go wrong. Homosexuality, and homosexual relationships are exactly the same as heterosexuality and heterosexual relationship. The only difference is that the two partners are of the same sex and not the opposite sex, with the consequence that procreation is not possible. The rest is all the same.
            There is plenty of approval of homosexual relationships within the bible. Read David & Jonathan. Read Daniel and his king. Read Ruth & Naomi. No condemnation at all.
            In Matthew 19 Jesus clearly makes the exception from marriage for homosexuals. Again without condemnation. He even mentions them in the same sentence as celibates for the kingdom of heaven.
            The “sin” of homosexuality is a human invention, for a very particular purpose. In 390 AC.
            Ask yourself why the meaning of the word Eunuch has been changed in that period? Ask yourself why the story of S&G has been made about homosexuality, why it so clearly has never been before (all well documented)?
            Politics… If you are interested I can tell you much more about it.

          • Chet

            I know my Holy Bible very well, Sir, and you’re assertion that King David and Saul’s son, Jonathan, were anything more than good friends or best buds is preposterous and non-biblical in its origin. I repeat, no sin is justified in God’s sight, try as men might like to make it so. Whether, homosexual acts, fornication or adultery, no such participant shall inherit eternal life. Such is plainly laid out in I Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5: 19-21. Clearly written to Christians, they are advised that such “were” some of you. These attributes and habits, sexual and otherwise are not to define a “Christian”. We might as well end our communications at this point as you are deceived into seeing something permissible which does not appear and I understand English and am instructed via the indwelling Holy Spirit which seeks to lead his own into all truth. Not confusion and gray areas… Thanks for the opportunity to share and God bless. End…

          • David&Jonathan

            You are probably using one of those “modern” translations of the bible. The “original” translation KJV is not using the word homosexuals in Corinthians 6:9-11. It doesn’t even use the word Sodomites, a term that was in use at the time of translating the KJV to refer to homosexuals. No, the original speaks of abusers of themselves with mankind. The KJV uses this translation for the original word arsenokoitai. A word never used before, and only used twice by Paul. If Paul would have want to refer to homosexuals he could have used the word pederast which was common in his time. If the KJV translators would have understood Paul to have referred to homosexuals, they would have used the word sodomite. Both didn’t. Instead they used a translation which can mean many things. We don’t know the sex of the abusers, and we don’t know the sex of mankind, as it means all human beings, both male and female. And it has been interpreted very differently in history. From masturbators, practicers of oral sex (both in the past included in the term sodomite as well), male prostitute for women, rapist, and more modern homosexual. Basically your translation is the flavor of the day and only proves the prejudice of the translator.
            Now lets have a close look at the relationship between David & Jonathan.

            We have lots of verses in 1 Samuel 18 that talk about Jonathan loving David more than himself, that Jonathan is in love with David, etc. etc. But there is much more clarification what that relationship really entails:

            1 samuel 18.
            1 As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2 And Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. 3 Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.

            The 2nd verse is of particular relevance as it uses the same language as most references within the bible to a marriage. Read Genesis and read Matthew. They all use the words “And for this a man shall leave the house of his father”
            To have this verse preceding the 3rd verse regarding the covenant, it makes it very clear what kind of covenant this is.

            And there is more:

            20 And Michal Saul’s daughter loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him.

            21 And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the twain.

            Here Saul again recognized the covenant between David and Jonathan in the same line as a marriage, as it makes David Saul’s son in law.

            30 Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness?

            What could be more clear? Saul here calls Jonathan a shameful pervert (‘âvâh). Depending on where the English translations place the comma (ancient Hebrew didn’t use them), before or after the words perverse and woman, he may even be calling his son a perverse woman, in other words, a homosexual, directly. Different versions handle it variously. But regardless, Saul here accuses Jonathan directly: “Don’t lie to me, I know about you and David, you’re a couple of sexual perverts who shame both me and your mother!

            After this emotional event, Jonathan and David met secretly in the woods. The biblical record of their rendezvous at 20:41 is charged with love and sexual passion as they intimately kiss and embrace.

            “And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.”

            “…until David exceeded.” What does this mean? The Hebrew word used here is Gadal and is an interesting word to use. It literally means “to grow, become great or important, promote, make powerful, praise, magnify, do great things.” Now, this was one of the low points in David’s life. His mentor, King Saul, was seeking his death, Jonathan had just come into the woods where he was hiding to tell David he needed to flee for his life. As in English, the context in which a word is used can alter its meaning. In this case, David obviously didn’t remain hidden in the woods until becoming the great leader he eventually became. The only other possible meaning for this phrase is they enbraced and kissed until David had “grown” or become erect, until he, and obviously Jonathan, became “great” or “swollen” and had made physical love. This is the only concievable meaning.

            After this touching scene, David fled from Saul’s wrath, kissing his lover good-bye.

            At 23:16-18 Jonathan again meets David in the woods and the two re-swear their undying love and devotion:

            16 And Jonathan Saul’s son arose, and went to David into the wood, and strengthened his hand in God.

            17 And he said unto him, Fear not: for the hand of Saul my father shall not find thee; and thou shalt be king over Israel, and I shall be next unto thee; and that also Saul my father knoweth.

            18 And they two made a covenant before the LORD: and David abode in the wood, and Jonathan went to his house.

            If this was a heterosexual couple there would be no doubt about how the episode should be understood: David was again living in the forest. Jonathan went to him, encouraged him in God and the two men made a “covenant” to one another before God. What was this covenant? The text clearly tells us with yet another unmistakable confirmation about their marriage: “thou shalt be king over Israel, and I shall be next unto thee.” In other words, You David will be the king and I will be, so to speak, your queen!

            You recall how I interpreted Saul’s accusation that Jonathan and David were “sexual perverts who shame both me and your mother!” Here Jonathan confirms this understanding. Not only does he promise loyalty to David, to be his “queen,” he also says, “I shall be next unto thee; and that also Saul my father knoweth.” Saul knows what? It is obvious!

            II Samuel 1:26 tells us that after Saul and Jonathan’s death, David remembered his lover fondly and lamented: “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant hast thou been unto me. Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”

            With the possible exception of certian of his Psalms to God, one seeks in vain for any description of love more profound or heartfelt from David than this. He had sex with women, many of them, but these relationships seem to have been little more than sexual conquests of political expediency, with the possible exception of his relationship with Bathsheba. But clearly Jonathan was the love of David’s life. He loved him with a love surpassing all others. Jonathan was David’s husband and one true love, the others meant nothing by comparison.

            A homosexual relationship between David & Jonathan is in no way unbiblical. As homosexuality has never been a sin in the bible. That is a human construct for a very specific political purpose in the 4th century.

            Read also up on Matthew 19:11 &12 and ask yourself why the definition of the word Eunuch was changed over time. And the same for the story of Sodom & Gomorrah. This story was never about homosexuality. Why was the meaning changed?

    • David&Jonathan

      You forget the setting of the scene in Romans 1, which shows the context: Idolatry and worshipping of other gods. Homosexuality outside that setting is perfectly fine. And may I suggest you include next time Romans 2 as well?

      2 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. 2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. 3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

      • Amos Moses

        “Homosexuality outside that setting is perfectly fine. ”

        No ….. more lies from the dark side ……… “Idolatry and worshipping of other gods.” ………. it LEADS to rejecting God ………. and that leads to being lost ……. and THAT leads to homosexuality ……….. there is a progression there ……. a progressive desire to reject God and follow ones own desires ………..

        • David&Jonathan

          I agree that Idolatry and worshipping of other gods leads to rejecting God. That is why it is evil and a sin.
          The rest doesn’t make any sense and is not substantiated by any scripture (or anything else), hence, only displays your prejudice.

          Zero points…

          • Amos Moses

            “The rest doesn’t make any sense and is not substantiated by any scripture”

            Really …………….

            1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
            1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
            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:

            ***************************************************************
            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.
            1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
            *********************************************************************
            1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

            Then as you say ………. you are taking it OUT OF CONTEXT ……… and you are the zero point ………………

          • David&Jonathan

            Indeed.

            Now you come with Romans 1. Very interesting, especially because you have included 1.25, which gives you the context explicitly clear. Romans 1 is about idolatry. Romans 1 is about pagan fertility rituals as part of the worshipping of Roman gods. These fertility rituals were all about sex with everything on two and four legs, driven by lust. Where men changed their natural preference for their unnatural preference, and for women the same thing.

            From Matthew 19 we already know that Jesus teaches us that homosexuality is inborn, and thus is the nature of the individual involved. Being a homosexual and practicing homosexuality is not going against your own nature. It is in accordance with your own nature.

            A homosexual having sex with a woman would be against his nature, and within the context as described in Romans 1:25, equally sin full as a straight man having sex with a man within the same context.

            Obviously this context is not applicable to normal homosexual relationships.

            Still zero points….

            And a pitty that you don’t continue reading/quoting, as the next chapter is especially for you:

            2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?

          • Amos Moses

            “From Matthew 19 we already know that Jesus teaches us that homosexuality is inborn, and thus is the nature of the individual involved. Being a homosexual and practicing homosexuality is not going against your own nature. It is in accordance with your own nature.”

            Sorry ………. did you have an orchiectomy ………….. bet it hurt ………. No ………….. FAIL …………….. eunuchs are not homosexuals in any way ………. nor are they trannys ………….. FAIL …………….

          • David&Jonathan

            Again wrong. Jesus did not have your dictionary at this disposal. So we have to look at his references for the meaning of the word Eunuch: Talmud and Roman Law of that time. Both make it obvious that born/natural eunuchs are not missing any body parts and technically still capable of procreation, however have no desire to do so with a woman. This in contrast to a man made eunuch who is missing the essential body parts. This is very well documented.

          • Amos Moses

            No …….. we need to look at the GREEK ………. which He spoke ……….. to understand what He said ………

            G2135
            εὐνοῦχος
            eunouchos
            yoo-noo’-khos
            From εὐνή eunē (a bed) and G2192; a castrated person (such being employed in Oriental bed chambers); by extension an impotent or unmarried man; by implication a chamberlain (state officer): – eunuch.

          • David&Jonathan

            Again, Jesus didn’t have your current day dictionary at his disposal. both the Talmud and Roman Law are very specific and Jesus his context.

          • Amos Moses

            Again ………. we have the GREEK ………….

          • David&Jonathan

            And Eunuchs according to the early church “fathers”:

            the Christian theologian Clement of Alexandria provided a complementary perspective about the born eunuch, by way of quoting the Basilidian Christians with respect to the gospel verse about eunuchs (Stromata 3.1.1):

            Some men by birth have a nature to turn away from women, and those who are subject to this natural constitution do well not to marry. These, they say, are the eunuchs by birth.

          • Amos Moses

            Pulpit Commentary
            Verse 12. – Our Lord proceeds to note three classes of men to whom it is given to abstain from marriage. There are some eunuchs, which were so born. The first class consists of those who are physically unable to contract matrimony, or, having the power, lack the inclination. They are compulsorily continent, and are not voluntary abstainers. Neither is the second class: those which were made eunuchs of men. Such were common enough in the harems and courts of Orientals. The cruel and infamous treatment which such persons underwent was practised against their will, and consequently their continence had no sort of merit. The third is the only class which of choice and for high reasons lived a celibate life: which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. This is not to be understood of excision; for this would be a contravention of the order of nature and the good work of creation. Origen, who took the passage literally, and with his own hands mutilated himself, was justly condemned by the verdict of the Church. The verb is to be understood in a metaphorical sense of the mortification of the natural desires and impulses at the cost of much pain and trouble, the spirit conquering the flesh by the special grace of God. The motive of such self-denial is high and pure. It is practised “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake,” that is, to be free from distraction and the cares and dangers involved in a married life. St. Paul carries forward the Lord’s teaching when he writes (1 Corinthians 7:32, 33), “He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife” (comp. Isaiah 56:3, 4). The celibate life, deliberately embraced for religion’s sake, is here approved by Christ, not to the disparagement of matrimony, but as a counsel which some are enabled to follow to their soul’s great benefit. It may be added that the counsel applies also to married persons who sacrifice conjugal endearments for spiritual reasons – “have wives as though they had none” (1 Corinthians 7:29). Let him receive it. This is not an injunction, but a permission; it is no universal rule, prescribed to all or to the many; it is a special grace allowed to the few, and by few attained. “Each man,” says St. Paul, “hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that” (1 Corinthians 7:7, 26).

          • David&Jonathan

            lack the inclination. this piece is in support of my thesis. Thanks for the point!

          • Amos Moses

            Yes …………. lack of inclination ……….. so they should NOT be marrying ANYONE ………… much less another man …………….. case closed ………. thanx ……….

          • David&Jonathan

            excused of marriage with a woman. that is the context of matthew 19. No forbidding of marriage with a man…

          • Amos Moses

            No …………. very selective reading though ………… and OUT OF CONTEXT ……….

            Matthew
            19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
            19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
            19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

            NOTHING there about a man leaving mother and father for ANOTHER MAN ………………… “For this cause” he said ……….. and the cause …………. “he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,” …………….. not male and male ………….. not female and female ……………… he which made them at the beginning made them MALE and FEMALE …………………..

          • David&Jonathan

            Now try again and read 19:4 to 19:12 in one go.
            in 19:4 he tells them that he made them in the beginning male and female. And he explains that they are supposed to marry each other. However, in 19:12 he comes with his exceptions for a male – female marriage.
            It is also clear that he does not make a woman for every man, as for every 100 women, 107 men are being born.
            Now look carefully at the words used in 19:5 and compare this with the story of David & Jonathan. in the verse after the establishment of the covenant between them, David leaves the house of his father and moves in with Jonathan.

          • Amos Moses

            Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
            12. eunuchs = “unmarried.”
            12. for the kingdom of heaven’s sake] In old days some men abstained from marriage in order to devote themselves to the study of the law, in later times men have done so for the furtherance of Christianity.

          • David&Jonathan

            this definition does not exclude homosexuals…

          • Amos Moses

            Nor does it include them …………. FAIL ……….

          • David&Jonathan

            It does make it obvious that being an eunuch has a much wider meaning than being a castrate…

          • Amos Moses

            So you were born without stones ………….. or did you have an orchiectomy ……………

          • David&Jonathan

            That is not what it says… Because without balls or missing other parts of your reproductive organs means you can not make babies. While Eunuchs (natural/born) still can according to the definitions in the time of Jesus.

          • Amos Moses

            ” While Eunuchs (natural/born) still can according to the definitions in the time of Jesus.”

            Eunuchs ……….. BY DEFINITION ………….. CANNOT …………. you are really not very good at your witchcraft ………….. you should go back to Hogwarts …….. playing word games with Gods word is not going to work out for you …………..

          • David&Jonathan

            Again sweetheart, Jesus didn’t use your dictionary. The meaning of the word Eunuch has changed over time. Proof has been provided many times to you. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not supported by facts. The facts are on my side.

          • Amos Moses

            “Again sweetheart, Jesus didn’t use your dictionary.”

            Sorry ………. WE HAVE HIS DICTIONARY ……………… so your point is MOOT …………..

          • David&Jonathan

            So how do you explain the words of the church father that i have quoted twice? Is he a lier? Is the roman law of that time lying? Is the talmud lying?

          • David&Jonathan

            the Christian theologian Clement of Alexandria provided a complementary perspective about the born eunuch, by way of quoting the Basilidian Christians with respect to the gospel verse about eunuchs (Stromata 3.1.1):

            Some men by birth have a nature to turn away from women, and those who are subject to this natural constitution do well not to marry. These, they say, are the eunuchs by birth.

          • Amos Moses

            And even if i accept that ……….. does not mean they are ‘mo’s ……………..

          • David&Jonathan

            It for sure doesn’t exclude homosexuals from the definition. Born so from mothers womb (according to Jesus)

          • Amos Moses

            There are no “born homosexuals” ………… consider the implications ……… if there are …………. they can be aborted away ……………. that is the lie you are buying …………. is that what you are really arguing in favor of ……. that idea …….. if you are ………….. then your reprobate mind has truly taken over your senses ……….

          • David&Jonathan

            I know the implications perfectly well. It exposes the man made lies that have been in place since 390 after christ. The lies you believe in. It also means that homosexuality has never been a sin. And that is exactly the point.

            You must know by now that homosexuality was not the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Ask yourself, why did these lies come into being?

          • David&Jonathan

            Now lets have a close look at the relationship between David & Jonathan.

            We have lots of verses in 1 Samuel 18 that talk about Jonathan loving David more than himself, that Jonathan is in love with David, etc. etc. But there is much more clarification what that relationship really entails:

            1 samuel 18.

            1 As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2 And Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. 3 Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.

            The 2nd verse is of particular relevance as it uses the same language as most references within the bible to a marriage. Read Genesis and read Matthew. They all use the words “And for this a man shall leave the house of his father”

            To have this verse preceding the 3rd verse regarding the covenant, it makes it very clear what kind of covenant this is.

            And there is more:

            20 And Michal Saul’s daughter loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him.

            21 And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the twain.

            Here Saul again recognized the covenant between David and Jonathan in the same line as a marriage, as it makes David Saul’s son in law.

            30 Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness?

            What could be more clear? Saul here calls Jonathan a shameful pervert (‘âvâh). Depending on where the English translations place the comma (ancient Hebrew didn’t use them), before or after the words perverse and woman, he may even be calling his son a perverse woman, in other words, a homosexual, directly. Different versions handle it variously. But regardless, Saul here accuses Jonathan directly: “Don’t lie to me, I know about you and David, you’re a couple of sexual perverts who shame both me and your mother!

            After this emotional event, Jonathan and David met secretly in the woods. The biblical record of their rendezvous at 20:41 is charged with love and sexual passion as they intimately kiss and embrace.

            “And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.”

            “…until David exceeded.” What does this mean? The Hebrew word used here is Gadal and is an interesting word to use. It literally means “to grow, become great or important, promote, make powerful, praise, magnify, do great things.” Now, this was one of the low points in David’s life. His mentor, King Saul, was seeking his death, Jonathan had just come into the woods where he was hiding to tell David he needed to flee for his life. As in English, the context in which a word is used can alter its meaning. In this case, David obviously didn’t remain hidden in the woods until becoming the great leader he eventually became. The only other possible meaning for this phrase is they enbraced and kissed until David had “grown” or become erect, until he, and obviously Jonathan, became “great” or “swollen” and had made physical love. This is the only concievable meaning.

            After this touching scene, David fled from Saul’s wrath, kissing his lover good-bye.

            At 23:16-18 Jonathan again meets David in the woods and the two re-swear their undying love and devotion:

            16 And Jonathan Saul’s son arose, and went to David into the wood, and strengthened his hand in God.

            17 And he said unto him, Fear not: for the hand of Saul my father shall not find thee; and thou shalt be king over Israel, and I shall be next unto thee; and that also Saul my father knoweth.

            18 And they two made a covenant before the LORD: and David abode in the wood, and Jonathan went to his house.

            If this was a heterosexual couple there would be no doubt about how the episode should be understood: David was again living in the forest. Jonathan went to him, encouraged him in God and the two men made a “covenant” to one another before God. What was this covenant? The text clearly tells us with yet another unmistakable confirmation about their marriage: “thou shalt be king over Israel, and I shall be next unto thee.” In other words, You David will be the king and I will be, so to speak, your queen!

            You recall how I interpreted Saul’s accusation that Jonathan and David were “sexual perverts who shame both me and your mother!” Here Jonathan confirms this understanding. Not only does he promise loyalty to David, to be his “queen,” he also says, “I shall be next unto thee; and that also Saul my father knoweth.” Saul knows what? It is obvious!

            II Samuel 1:26 tells us that after Saul and Jonathan’s death, David remembered his lover fondly and lamented: “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant hast thou been unto me. Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”

            With the possible exception of certian of his Psalms to God, one seeks in vain for any description of love more profound or heartfelt from David than this. He had sex with women, many of them, but these relationships seem to have been little more than sexual conquests of political expediency, with the possible exception of his relationship with Bathsheba. But clearly Jonathan was the love of David’s life. He loved him with a love surpassing all others. Jonathan was David’s husband and one true love, the others meant nothing by comparison.

          • Amos Moses

            Your only purpose here is to bring discredit on scripture ………… and the only thing you have to say …………. is that every person in history got it wrong ……….. except you ………. until now …………… and that is basically bovine scatology ……….. post modern clap trap ……… or to put it more succinctly …….

            It is anachronistic arrogance and chronological snobbery. Where we happen to think that we is the smartest generation to ever be since the foundation of the everything and there aint been nobody who has ever been smarter than us.

            …… and your twisting of scripture is just that ………… twisting Gods word ……. and you are still wrong ………. have the last word ……….

          • David&Jonathan

            Lets have a look at history. Till 390 AC homosexuality was not criminalized. Till 390 AC same sex marriages were common in the Roman empire. Till 390 AC the word natural eunuch was used to refer to homosexuals. Till 390 AC the story of Sodom & Gomorrah was not about homosexuals but was about greed, inhospitality towards strangers and grave injustice (just as all other references in the bible tell you). And most important, till 390 AC eunuchs held very influential positions at courts.

            So what happened in the 4th century? The 4th century is mostly remembered by the acceptance of Christianity by Roman Emperor Constantine. However, there was a huge divide within the early church about the divinity of Jesus Christ. One group, the current day Catholics, aimed for the trinity concept, while the other group, the Arians had a different opinion. At the council of Nicea the Arians lost and (an early version of) the trinity concept was made official church policy. However, the Arians had a very strong position at the court of Constantine (and his successors) and in practice reversed the Nicea decision. Why did they have such a strong position? They were trusted ones, they were Eunuchs. (Eusebius of Nicomedea and many others, all well documented).

            The whole 4th century was about the so called arian controversy. Back and forward. Only at the end of the 4th century the Roman Catholic Church finally won the war. They did so by removing the credibility of the Arians, to make being Eunuchs (homosexuals) into something disgusting. To make it the sin of sins. By doing so, they eliminated the preferred position of the Eunuchs at the courts. As a result arianism lost (and we now have the trinity, a pagan concept of origin).

            The above is well documented in early church history. Read up on the history of Arianism, Eusebius of Nicomedea, etc.

            To make sure arianism never raise again, they changed the meaning of the word eunuch, the meaning of S&G. It was at this moment that the same sex marriages became forbidden, etc. and homosexuality as the sin of sins became the cornerstone of the Roman Catholic Church and dogma.

            It was forbidden to read the bible for ordinary people for the next thousand years, until the reformation. The Roman Catholic Church continued their lie and created a huge prejudice against homosexuals. It was a criminal offense for millennia. Thousands have been burned at the stake.

            After the reformation, also common people could start reading the bible. So now they had the opportunity to read the real texts. However, because the institutionalized prejudice against homosexuality, including the criminalization, made it impossible for people to read the texts in their original meaning. This continues till today, and you are the living example of this.

            It is only now (the last twenty years) that homosexuality is accepted as normal again, that the bible can be read in its original meaning again.

            Obviously I am not alone in my interpretation of the bible. It is common opinion between theologians that Sodom & Gomorrah was never about homosexuality (even on the conventional side of the debate), and it is equally common opinion that Lev 18 & 20 was never about homosexual acts outside the context of Idolatry.

            Even early popes had their indiscretions and confirming what I am telling you here. So no, I am not alone.

            But common opinion is powerful and hard to change. Especially when it has been cultivated by millennia of lies. Thanks to the Roman Catholic Church.

            That is what the current day pope referred to when he told the world that the RCC owes homosexuals an apology.

          • Amos Moses

            Lets looks at scripture which refutes your points time and time again ……….

          • David&Jonathan

            I have shown you all the scripture relevant on this matter, and none has refuted my point. You still have to score your first… No substantiation on your side, therefore no credibility left on your side. Just a bad loser of the debate…

          • Amos Moses

            Science and common sense does not support your position ……….. and neither does scripture ……….

          • David&Jonathan

            Science???? That is a new one. Please enlighten me and explain why science disproves my previous post. I am very, very interested!
            Common sense? you mean common opinion. Common, unsubstantiated opinion, which equals common prejudice…

          • Amos Moses

            Choosing an activity which brings premature death ….. on every level ….. defies common sense …..

          • David&Jonathan

            Again mistaken. Homosexual sex within a monogamous relationship brings exactly the same risks as monogamous heterosexual sex: zero. You are confusing homosexuality with promiscuity. Two very different things. Unless your prejudice blurres the difference…

          • Amos Moses

            Obituraries numbering 6516 from 16 US homosexual journals over 12 years were compared to a large sample of obituaries from regular newspapers. The obituaries from the regular newspapers were similar to US averages for longevity, the median age of death of married men was 75, 80% of them died old, 65 or older. For unmarried or divorced men the median age of death was 57 and 32% of them died old.

            Married women averaged age 79 at death, 85% died old, and unmarried and divorced women averaged age 71, and 60% of them died old.

            However, the median age of death for homosexuals was virtually the same nationwide, and overall, less than 2% survived to old age. If AIDS was the cause of death, the median age was 39 years old. For the 829 homosexuals who died of something else besides AIDS, the median age was 42 years of age, and 9% died old. Of 163 lesbians, the median age was 44 years of age, and 20% died old. 2.8% of homosexuals died violently and they were 116 times more apt to be murdered, 24 times more apt to commit suicide, and had a traffic accident death rate 18 times greater than comparably aged white males. 20% of lesbians died of murder, suicide, or accident, a rate 487 times greater than that of white females aged 25 to 44.

          • David&Jonathan

            That research has been discredited on many occasions and is rubbish. Statistically every single rule of a proper empirical study has been broken.
            An important warning should have been the death rate of the lesbians, as they have zero chance of attracting any STD.
            And being murdered is normally not held against the victim but against the person committing the crime. If it is a hate crime, coming from prejudice, it is you that should feel guilty, not the gay person.
            Even the traffic accident rate should be a great warning flag. Because obviously everybody has a more or less same chance of getting involved in a traffic accident. The research is crap.

            A complete methodological discussion on this “research” is available on the net. You can find it yourself. If you can’t I am more than happy to find it for you…

            Zero points.

          • Amos Moses

            Statistics are statistics ……….. hard to dispute ……….. especially when it is true ……… and reconfirmed ……….

            In 2006, The Medical Journal of Australia stated the following: “High rates of intestinal parasitism are found in MSM [men who have sex with men] throughout the world.”

            According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) both Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B disproportionately affects men who have sex with men (MSM).

            Lymphogranuloma venereum is a sexually transmitted disease that mainly infects the lymphatics. According to the recent medical literature, there have been recent outbreaks of lymphogranuloma venereum in Europe and North America and the outbreaks have been limited to the homosexual community.

            In June of 2004, the journal Nursing Clinics of North America reported: “One of the more pressing issues for gay men is anal carcinoma. Several recent studies have indicated the rate of anal dysplasia to be increasing in men with and without HIV. Ninety percent of men with HIV have the Human Papiloma Virus (HPV), while 65% of men without HIV have HPV. HPV type 16 is the most troublesome for developing cancer and is found in a significant portion of gay men.” (see also: Homosexuality and anal cancer).[17]

            In 2007 the Los Angeles Times reported the frequency of methamphetamine use is twenty times greater among homosexuals than in the general population.

            The recent medical literature states the homosexual men and lesbians in the United States have significantly higher rates of cigarette smoking than heterosexuals.

            A June 2004 , Canadian Community Health Survey of 83,000 people reported the following:

            “The results indicate that, for some health-related measures, there are important differences between the heterosexual population and the gay, lesbian and bisexual population.
            Among individuals aged 18 to 59, for example, 21.8% of homosexuals and bisexuals reported that they had an unmet health care need in 2003, nearly twice the proportion of heterosexuals (12.7%). Homosexuals and bisexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to find life stressful.

            In addition, 31.4% of homosexuals and bisexuals reported that they were physically active in 2003, compared with 25.4% of heterosexuals.

            A 1997 CDC report found that among homosexuals who had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple sexual partners, 68 percent were entirely unaware of the HIV status of their partners.

            The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated the following regarding syphilis in the United States: “While surveillance data are not available by risk behavior, a separate CDC analysis suggests that approximately 64 percent of all adult P&S syphilis cases in 2004 were among men who have sex with men, up from an estimated 5 percent in 1999….”

            The CDC reported the following regarding the United States and homosexuality: “CDC conducted sentinel surveillance in 28 cities and found the proportion of cases resistant to fluoroquinolone antibiotics (a first-line treatment for gonorrhea) increased from 4.1 percent in 2003 to 6.8 percent in 2004. Resistance is especially worrisome in men who have sex with men, where it was eight times higher than among heterosexuals (23.8 percent vs. 2.9 percent).”

          • David&Jonathan

            Again, the chance for somebody in a monogamous homosexual relationship to attract a STD is exactly the same as for a monogamous heterosexual relationship. No difference.

            You must be so happy that we now can properly get married and settle down. Reduces the risks considerably! So preach monogamous relationships for men. Is also much more in line with biblical teaching…

            Regarding your other statistics. You make the mistake of mixing correlation and causation. For example, homosexuals tend to live primarily in cities (they don’t like the country side). People in the country side take drugs below average, within the city above average. If you now would compare gay people living in a city with straight people living in a city you would not get significant differences. If you compare people living within a city and outside a city you would get very significant differences. That makes your conclusions rubbish. Same for accidents, the unmet care need, etc.

            I did some investigation in the syphilis story some time ago. It ended up being about 0,05% of the gay population. Hardly something to mention. Even when it comes to HIV infection we are talking about 5% of the gay population. Still to high, but it doesn’t say anything about the general gay population.

            Promiscuity is a problem. Homosexuality is not. A stable relationship is something that I wish for all as it gives so much more meaning to life.

          • Amos Moses

            “the chance for somebody in a monogamous homosexual relationship to attract a STD is exactly the same as for a monogamous heterosexual relationship”

            Statistics say different ……..

            “You must be so happy that we now can properly get married and settle down.”

            Powdered sugar on manure does not make it a jelly doughnut …….. call it what you like ….. scripture does not recognize it ………. anymore that if you took a sheet of paper ……. called it a bulletproof vest ………… and then went to Pulse ………… good luck with that ……

          • David&Jonathan

            Tell that to David & Jonathan…

          • Amos Moses

            Show me where it says they were homosexuals ………… because scripture does not …….

          • David&Jonathan

            You are supposed to read the posts…

            Now lets have a close look at the relationship between David & Jonathan.

            We have lots of verses in 1 Samuel 18 that talk about Jonathan loving David more than himself, that Jonathan is in love with David, etc. etc. But there is much more clarification what that relationship really entails:

            1 samuel 18.

            1 As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2 And Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. 3 Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.

            The 2nd verse is of particular relevance as it uses the same language as most references within the bible to a marriage. Read Genesis and read Matthew. They all use the words “And for this a man shall leave the house of his father”

            To have this verse preceding the 3rd verse regarding the covenant, it makes it very clear what kind of covenant this is.

            And there is more:

            20 And Michal Saul’s daughter loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him.

            21 And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the twain.

            Here Saul again recognized the covenant between David and Jonathan in the same line as a marriage, as it makes David Saul’s son in law.

            30 Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness?

            What could be more clear? Saul here calls Jonathan a shameful pervert (‘âvâh). Depending on where the English translations place the comma (ancient Hebrew didn’t use them), before or after the words perverse and woman, he may even be calling his son a perverse woman, in other words, a homosexual, directly. Different versions handle it variously. But regardless, Saul here accuses Jonathan directly: “Don’t lie to me, I know about you and David, you’re a couple of sexual perverts who shame both me and your mother!

            After this emotional event, Jonathan and David met secretly in the woods. The biblical record of their rendezvous at 20:41 is charged with love and sexual passion as they intimately kiss and embrace.

            “And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.”

            “…until David exceeded.” What does this mean? The Hebrew word used here is Gadal and is an interesting word to use. It literally means “to grow, become great or important, promote, make powerful, praise, magnify, do great things.” Now, this was one of the low points in David’s life. His mentor, King Saul, was seeking his death, Jonathan had just come into the woods where he was hiding to tell David he needed to flee for his life. As in English, the context in which a word is used can alter its meaning. In this case, David obviously didn’t remain hidden in the woods until becoming the great leader he eventually became. The only other possible meaning for this phrase is they enbraced and kissed until David had “grown” or become erect, until he, and obviously Jonathan, became “great” or “swollen” and had made physical love. This is the only concievable meaning.

            After this touching scene, David fled from Saul’s wrath, kissing his lover good-bye.

            At 23:16-18 Jonathan again meets David in the woods and the two re-swear their undying love and devotion:

            16 And Jonathan Saul’s son arose, and went to David into the wood, and strengthened his hand in God.

            17 And he said unto him, Fear not: for the hand of Saul my father shall not find thee; and thou shalt be king over Israel, and I shall be next unto thee; and that also Saul my father knoweth.

            18 And they two made a covenant before the LORD: and David abode in the wood, and Jonathan went to his house.

            If this was a heterosexual couple there would be no doubt about how the episode should be understood: David was again living in the forest. Jonathan went to him, encouraged him in God and the two men made a “covenant” to one another before God. What was this covenant? The text clearly tells us with yet another unmistakable confirmation about their marriage: “thou shalt be king over Israel, and I shall be next unto thee.” In other words, You David will be the king and I will be, so to speak, your queen!

            You recall how I interpreted Saul’s accusation that Jonathan and David were “sexual perverts who shame both me and your mother!” Here Jonathan confirms this understanding. Not only does he promise loyalty to David, to be his “queen,” he also says, “I shall be next unto thee; and that also Saul my father knoweth.” Saul knows what? It is obvious!

            II Samuel 1:26 tells us that after Saul and Jonathan’s death, David remembered his lover fondly and lamented: “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant hast thou been unto me. Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”

            With the possible exception of certian of his Psalms to God, one seeks in vain for any description of love more profound or heartfelt from David than this. He had sex with women, many of them, but these relationships seem to have been little more than sexual conquests of political expediency, with the possible exception of his relationship with Bathsheba. But clearly Jonathan was the love of David’s life. He loved him with a love surpassing all others. Jonathan was David’s husband and one true love, the others meant nothing by comparison.

          • Amos Moses

            “An important warning should have been the death rate of the lesbians, as they have zero chance of attracting any STD.”

            HPV ………….

          • David&Jonathan

            Ok, there you have your first point. I was wrong when it comes to the zero chance of attracting any STD.

            However, 25% of the population has HPV.

          • Amos Moses

            “Homosexual sex within a monogamous relationship”

            A myth for most ……. and a lie …….

            Froma 2010 article ………..

            A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.

            New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

            That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

            The study also found open gay couples just as happy in their relationships as pairs in sexually exclusive unions, Dr. Hoff said. A different study, published in 1985, concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer.

          • David&Jonathan

            A study to be released next month…. Did we ever see it?

            Now lets have a look at the numbers. Do you know how many heterosexual men have sex outside their marriage?

            Some statistics:
            It is estimated that roughly 30% to 60% of all married individuals (in the United States) will engage in infidelity at some point during their marriage (see Buss & Shackelford for review of this research). And these numbers are probably on the conservative side, if you consider that close to half of all marriages end in divorce (people are more likely to stray as relationships fall apart; also see, who is likely to cheat).

            Research consistently shows that 2% to 3% of all children are the product of infidelity (see Anderson). And most of these children are unknowingly raised by men who are not their biological fathers. DNA testing is finally making it easy for people to check the paternity of their children (see paternity issues).

            Infidelity is becoming more common among people under 30. Many experts believe this increase in cheating is due to greater opportunity (time spent away from a spouse), as well as young people developing the habit of having multiple sexual partners before marriage (see young and restless – Wall Street Journal).

            More statistics:

            Percentage of marriages that end in divorce in America: 53%

            Percentage of “arranged marriages” (where parents pick their sons or daughters spouses) that end in divorce: 3%

            Medical field(s) with the highest divorce rate: psychiatrists and marriage counselors

            Percentage of marriages where one or both spouses admit to infidelity, either physical or emotional: 41%

            Percentage of men who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they’ve had: 57%

            Percentage of women who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they’ve had: 54%

            Percentage of men and women who admit to having an affair with a co-worker: 36%

            Percentage of men and women who admit to infidelity on business trips: 36%

            Percentage of men and women who admit to infidelity (emotional or physical) with a brother-in-law or sister-in-law: 17%

            Average length of an affair: 2 years

            Percentage of marriages that last after an affair has been admitted to or discovered: 31%

            Percentage of men who say they would have an affair if they knew they would never get caught: 74%

            Percentage of women who say they would have an affair if they knew they would never get caught: 68%

            Now compare this to your research. There is no difference…

          • Amos Moses

            “Do you know how many heterosexual men have sex outside their marriage?”

            Yep ………. and they are equally wrong ……… because scripture does not call for that either ……. so what ………..

          • David&Jonathan

            So what you are actually fighting against is infidelity, both heterosexual infidelity and homosexual infidelity.
            Based on your arguments there is no reason to be against monogamous homosexual relationships…

          • Amos Moses

            No …………… i am fighting against the lie that being a homosexual is good and normal and healthy ………….. cause it aint …………… and it is NOT recognized by scripture as such …… it is sin ………..

          • David&Jonathan

            Well, you don’t have scripture on your side….

          • Amos Moses

            No ………. that would be you …………. you have to insert lies to make it say what you want it to say ……

          • David&Jonathan

            I don’t need to insert anything, I don’t need to change translations, I only need to read the bible as it is written in the beginning, or the KJV for that matter.

            You however come with new translations (corinthian for example) where words with a total different meaning (abusers of themselves with mankind) all the sudden get replaced by the word homosexual.

            You refuse to quote including context (Romans 1.25, Lev 18:21).

            Now you tell me who is corrupting scripture…

          • Amos Moses

            So who wrote all of scripture ……………

          • David&Jonathan

            You?

          • Amos Moses

            No ………. try again ………

          • Amos Moses

            #Crickets# ………………….

          • Amos Moses

            “You are confusing homosexuality with promiscuity. Two very different things.”

            Scripture does not recognize this distinction ………….

          • David&Jonathan

            Scripture doesn’t talk about homosexuality. The word didn’t even exist…

          • Amos Moses

            Okay …………. so now you want to argue that it does not talk about it …….. but for the last two to three days you have been trying to convince anyone reading this thread ………. THAT IT DOES SANCTION IT ………….. having trouble keeping your lies straight ……

            Oh, BTW ……….. AGAIN …………. “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” ……….. but that is NOT homosexuality ……………..so you are lying to make a point …… does it use a “dictionary” that Christ did not have? ………. as you put it ….

            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.

            1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

            See ………….. you have to LIE to yourself …………… so that you may convince others of your LIES …………… and no one is fooled if they are in the truth ……… / SMH ……….. you need Christ badly ………….. there is forgiveness for what you are doing ………

          • David&Jonathan

            A there is Romans 1 again.
            I already explained to you that you should include 1.25. Which makes it perfectly clear that this is about sex within the context of Idolatry.

          • Amos Moses

            And scripture makes it ABUNDANTLY clear …………… HOMOSEXUALITY IS IDOLATRY …….. in ALL ITS FORMS …………

          • David&Jonathan

            That is nowhere to be found in scripture.
            Again, Idolatry is the worshipping of other gods. Homosexuality is about love between two human beings.

          • Amos Moses

            “That is nowhere to be found in scripture.
            Again, Idolatry is the worshipping of other gods.”

            Idolatry is worship of ANYTHING other than God …………. ANYTHING ……. worship of the CREATION ….. and NOT THE CREATOR ………… and is SIN …………. and it is found in Romans 1 ….

          • David&Jonathan

            So now who is exactly inserting things into scripture? who is guilty of twisting?

            Homosexual sex is as much about worshipping the creation as heterosexual sex is. It is about love.

            Love as in fulfillment of the law… God’s law…

            The letter of Romans 1 is written to? exactly, Romans. What did Romans do? they had other gods before them. How did they worship these gods? with fertility rituals, where men and women had sex with everything of four legs. Where lust was so high that straight men had sex with other men, and straight women had sex with other women, against their nature. Sex orgies, temple prostitution.

            All very well documented history.

            That obviously has nothing to do with homosexual relationships of today.

          • Amos Moses

            “So now who is exactly inserting things into scripture? who is guilty of twisting?”

            As homosexual sex is against scripture ………… and it is RIGHT THERE in Romans ……. i.e. ….. “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,”

            Nothing added ………. nothing twisted ……….. nothing taken away ………….. just inconvenient truth …… for you ….. and the twisting ………….. still you ………..

            FYI,,,,,, SHOPPING can be idolatry ………. or television ………. ANY THING …….

            1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
            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:
            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.
            1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

          • David&Jonathan

            I am still waiting for your explanation of Matthew 22:40…

          • Amos Moses

            22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
            22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
            22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
            22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
            22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

            So what …………….. i love you by telling you the truth ………… your return of that is to heap more lies about scripture ……………. SMH ……..

          • David&Jonathan

            That doesn’t come close to explaining why homosexuality is against the two commandments Love God and Love your neighbor.

            Still zero points

            (ok one point for you because of by lesbian glitch)…

          • Amos Moses

            That “love” is not Eros “love” ………. it is agape love ………. so try again ………..

            G25
            ἀγαπάω
            agapaō
            ag-ap-ah’-o
            Perhaps from ἄγαν agan (much; or compare [H5689]); to love (in a social or moral sense): – (be-) love (-ed). Compare G5368.

          • David&Jonathan

            You truly dont understand the most fundamental principle of the gospel.

          • Amos Moses

            It is talking about MORAL love ………….. homosexual love is immoral ………. it is love of the world ………… love of flesh ………… idolatry ………. and really has nothing to do with Mat 22 ……. but please give me your version and tell us what the gospel is …….. if you know …..

          • Amos Moses

            IF …………….. D&J were homosexual …………… they would have been stoned to death …….. per Leviticus …….. and they were not ………….. King or not King …………. David committed multiple sins ………… to include murder ……….. you cant even call this a “one off” …….. David grieved because he had offended God ……. you want to argue for pride in sin ……….. that is NOT what David did ……… there is a manly heterosexual love among men ………….. but that is not what you want to discuss ……….. you are trying to justify sin …………… and you fail at it miserably ………….

          • David&Jonathan

            And again you are mistaken. Leviticus 18 & 20 talks about homosexual acts within the context of Idolatry. Read Lev 18:21. Passing the seed trough the fires of Molech means offering your first born son in a fire to worship Molech. This is part of Molech worshipping. Why is a verse included about offering your child? Lev 18 & 20 are supposed to be about forbidden sex acts isn’t it? And something else. In the same chapters you find references to having sex with a woman during her period. A huge issue according to Lev 18 & 20. But not a problem at all according to Lev 15:24. Why the difference? Lev 18&20 are about Molech worshipping. You even find it in the first verses of Lev 20 spelled out. Because Molech worshipping was about child sacrifice and fertility rituals. In these fertility rituals, everybody had sex with everybody (and more, basically including everything of four legs as well). This is well documented history. Outside this context homosexuality is perfectly fine, just has having sex with a woman during her period is perfectly fine outside the context of Molech worshipping.
            How much has a modern day homosexual relationship to do with Molech worshipping? Zero. Molech worshipping violates the commandment Love God. A homosexual relationship outside that context does not.`
            Even the talmud explains that for a violation of Lev 20 four independent witnesses where necessary of the same act. Now tell me, when for the last time did you and your partner had sex with each other with four witnesses? I assume (I can mistaken) that you never had sex with your partner while four witnesses were watching. I for sure had never sex in such a setting. This points to sex in a public setting. Sex in a public setting points to the fertility rituals again.
            Take the KJV translation and read up on all the other references to male prostitutes. They all have the word cult preceding the references. Cult prostitutes. Temple prostitutes. Temple of Molech.

            In the whole history of the Sanhedrin there has never been one case of homosexuality brought before it.

            I don’t fail at all…

          • Amos Moses

            “And again you are mistaken. Leviticus 18 & 20 talks about homosexual acts within the context of Idolatry.”

            ANY homosexual act is an act of IDOLATRY …………..

          • David&Jonathan

            Again mistaken, i worship my husband as much as you worship your wife. A homosexual act, within a loving and caring relationship is an act of love….

          • Amos Moses

            “A homosexual act, within a loving and caring relationship is an act of love….”

            So i am not even sure what that means …… and it is not found in scripture ……….. and is a lie ……… and it is idolatry ………… man putting his desires before what God desires ……

          • David&Jonathan

            Read the story of David & Jonathan. That is what a loving and caring same sex relationship means. Or the story about Ruth & Naomi. Or Daniel and his King.

            That you can’t find it doesn’t mean it isn’t there…

            Idolatry is worshipping other gods then God (Molech, Roman Gods, etc). Has nothing to do with same sex relationships.

            Man putting his desires before what God desires is sinning. And what does God desire? Love God and Love your Neighbor.

            Still zero points.

            Let me give you the opportunity to score a real point.

            Lets have a close look at Matthew 22:

            36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
            37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
            38 This is the first and great commandment.
            39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
            40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

            Verse 40 tells you that all other laws follow from these two commandments. So these two commandments in itself should explain that homosexuality is a sin. They do not. Otherwise it would have ended up in the famous ten. Which it doesn’t.

            Now it is up to you to prove that homosexuality is a sin from these two commandments only. If you can, I will concede that you might have a point.

            Good luck!

          • Amos Moses

            “Read the story of David & Jonathan. That is what a loving and caring same sex relationship means. Or the story about Ruth & Naomi. Or Daniel and his King.”

            Nothing in scripture about any of them being homosexual ……….. and AGAIN ……. you say the bible does not speak about homosexuals and then you do ………….. cant keep the lies straight …….

          • David&Jonathan

            It doesn’t use the word homosexuality.

            I have given you already all the evidence about David & Jonathan. You should know better by now…

          • Amos Moses

            No …………. you gave your interpretation of what it says ………. and that makes it NOT scripture …………….. show where they were homosexuals ….. you cannot ………….. it aint there …….

            And as i said before ……….. even if they were ……….. it is forgivable ….. in that David REPENTED ……….. David understood ……… of all that he had done …. HE OFFENDED GOD ……………….. but that is not what you are trying to say …… You are trying to make the argument that you can offend God ………. and God is okay with that …………… MINUS THE REPENTANCE …………. and you are wrong …

          • David&Jonathan

            David didn’t see it as an offense towards God. He even made a love song for his beloved Jonathan, making it explicitly clear what was going on. He was proud of his relationship with Jonathan. And the writers of that part of the bible didn’t see it as a problem to include it in the bible. Because it was never a sin. Because it was perfectly fine.
            Only later (390 AC) homosexuality was made a sin. Not by God. By humans.

          • Amos Moses

            See ……… more lies about scripture and what was going on ……….. it was not a homosexual relationship …… it was a manly hetero- relationship …………. which is not sin ,,,, as i said ….. you have no evidence from scripture to make it otherwise …………..

          • David&Jonathan

            That is not what the text tells you. David might not have been 100% homosexual, but he was bisexual for sure. And his biggest love was Jonathan. He loved him more than women. And they were bound by a covenant before God. A covenant for which David left the house of his father… Which is the biblical language for marriage.

            Which is not a sin, and has never been…

          • Amos Moses

            “David might not have been 100% homosexual, but he was bisexual for sure.”

            Again ……….. no scripture ………… just your desire for it to be that ………….

          • David&Jonathan

            I am still waiting for your answer regarding Matthew 22…

          • Amos Moses

            Geneva Study Bible
            For there are some {l} eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have {m} made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
            (l) A man can become a eunuch in one of two ways: the first is by castration or emasculation, and the other by natural causes, such as a rupture.
            (m) Who abstain from marriage, and live as celibates through the gift of God.

          • David&Jonathan

            again wrong. That is the current day interpretation, however not historically accurate.

          • Amos Moses

            The Geneva Bible is one of the most historically significant translations of the Bible into English, preceding the King James translation by 51 years.[1] It was the primary Bible of 16th century Protestantism and was the Bible used by William Shakespeare[citation needed], Oliver Cromwell, John Knox, John Donne, and John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim’s Progress (1678)

            That is NOT a “current day interpretation” …………… FAIL ……………..

          • David&Jonathan

            As i mentioned in an earlier post, the meaning of the word eunuch changed between the 3rd and the 9th century. Therefore your 16th century translation is not historically correct.

          • Amos Moses

            And it did not change from when Christ spoke of it in scripture ………….. you can play ALL THE WORD GAMES YOU WANT ………….. it does not change Gods word or the truth ……. see ……. WE HAVE THE GREEK autographs …. from when they were written and then hidden away …………… THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS …….. discovered in the 1940s and 1950s ….. it has NOT CHANGED …………. It is the EXACT SAME WORD being translated ………….. FAIL ……………

            Dramatically, when the Bible manuscripts are compared to other ancient writings, they stand alone as the best-preserved literary works of all antiquity. Remarkably, there are thousands of existing Old Testament manuscripts and fragments copied throughout the Middle East, Mediterranean and European regions that agree phenomenally with each other. In addition, these texts substantially agree with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek some time during the 3rd century BC. The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in Israel in the 1940’s and 50’s, also provide astounding evidence for the reliability of the ancient transmission of the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries BC.

            The manuscript evidence for the “New Testament” is also dramatic, with nearly 25,000 ancient manuscripts discovered and archived so far, at least 5,600 of which are copies and fragments in the original Greek. 4 Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing fragment being a remarkably short 40-60 years.

          • David&Jonathan

            Who said that the bible changed? Not me.
            However, the word Eunuch used in the bible did get a different meaning over the years. Proof was included in my earlier posts.

          • Amos Moses

            “However, the word Eunuch used in the bible did get a different meaning over the years. ”

            So you are still saying Gods word changed ……….. IT DID NOT ……….. changing the definition ….. is corrupting His word …………. so no ……….. its meaning ….as originally used ….. is what is translated ……….. again ………… playing word games with God/Christ is not going to work out for you …

          • David&Jonathan

            Sorry sweetie. I know it is difficult to comprehend. But you have been lied to. And it is hard to give up on those lies, because you use them as support for your prejudice. However, lies are lies, and that is what you believe in. There is no support for prejudice in the bible. There is enough historical evidence. I have even provided you with the references so you can easily verify. And the funny thing is, you come up with your own post which turns out to support my position as well.

            Don’t be a bad loser. Loosing a debate is one thing, loosing your credibility is something completely else..

          • Amos Moses

            “Sorry sweetie. I know it is difficult to comprehend. But you have been lied to.”

            No ……….. you are the one trying to deceive and have been deceived ………. but you are correct ……… it is prejudice ………… TO THE LIES YOU ARE SPEAKING ………………

            “There is no support for prejudice in the bible.”

            SORRY ………….. again …………. WRONG ………….. God is prejudiced against those who lie about Him ….. that is blasphemy …….

            6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
            6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
            6:18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
            6:19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

            Pretty much describes EVERYTHING you are trying to do here …………

          • Amos Moses

            No ………. the word has not changed just as Gods word HAS NOT CHANGED ……. tho you may wish that to be true ………… to justify SIN ……………..

          • David&Jonathan

            You are factually wrong. I posted a quote from an early church father for you. He explained pretty much what the word eunuch meant at his time (first 2 centuries AC). Is he a lier?

            I post it again for you:

            the Christian theologian Clement of Alexandria provided a complementary perspective about the born eunuch, by way of quoting the Basilidian Christians with respect to the gospel verse about eunuchs (Stromata 3.1.1):

            Some men by birth have a nature to turn away from women, and those who are subject to this natural constitution do well not to marry. These, they say, are the eunuchs by birth.

            Or is the Talmud lying? or the Roman law of that time?

            No friend, you are wrong again. Homosexuality has never been a sin. Bearing false witness is. So Now Go and Sin No More!

          • Amos Moses

            “A homosexual having sex with a woman would be against his nature, and within the context as described in Romans 1:25”

            You just make this up as you go…… dont you ………….

          • David&Jonathan

            Not at all. Every human being has received his nature from God. Born so from mothers womb (according to Jesus).

          • Amos Moses

            He has a SIN NATURE …………… and NOTHING else …………… PERIOD ………..

          • David&Jonathan

            Is your unsubstantiated opinion. Do you know that bearing false witness made it to the famous ten?

            One point for me!

          • Amos Moses

            It is established in Genesis …………… no point for you ……………

          • David&Jonathan

            you are repeating yourself. I already replied to you on this one…

          • Amos Moses

            And you FAILED ……………… it is right there ……. IN CONTEXT ………… and it says ………

          • David&Jonathan

            You forget 1.25 this time…. Which determines the context: Idolatry…

          • Amos Moses

            And then it tells what that idolatry is …………..worship of the CREATURE …… ANOTHER MAN ……….. and not the Creator ……………

            1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and
            ************************************************************
            worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator,
            *************************************************************
            who is blessed for ever. Amen.

          • David&Jonathan

            What a nonsense. Love between two men has as much to do with worshipping the creation as the love between a man and a woman. Sorry my friend, you have to try harder. I know it is difficult but you are still at zero points…

      • Mary Lyons

        You are right, we Christians are not to judge those outside of Christ, because God in Romans Chapter One has already condemned and judged you, he says so in verse 2 of Romans Chapter Two that you quoted, “BUT WE ARE SURE THAT THE JUDGMENT OF GOD IS ACCORDING TO TRUTH AGAINST THEM WHICH COMMIT SUCH THINGS.”

        The Amplified Bible says in Romans 2:2 to make it a bit more clear, “But we know that the judgment (adverse, verdict, sentence) of God falls justly and in accordance with TRUTH upon those who practice such things.”

        Do you understand what that means? Go back to Romans 1:19-32 and read it. There is nowhere in the Bible that says David and Jonathan were homo’s. You are listening to the lies from the devil of him twisting Scripture to support your perverted lifestyle. That is what the devil does, he kills, steals and is destroying each and every homosexuals heart, mind and spirit to keep them from knowing the TRUTH about their sinful lifestyle that is an abomination to Holy, Righteous God.

        God does not wink at sin. There is nothing in the Bible that supports homosexuality in anyway other than to condemn it to hell. Rather you want to believe it or not, you are going to hell for eternity, unless you cry out to God to save you – plain and simple. You can justify, rationalize all you want, but God has already told you in Romans One of the judgment He has already placed on you.

        • David&Jonathan

          I am afraid that you do not understand the meaning of Romans 1:19-32 properly. It talks about an idolatrous setting, worshipping the creation and not the creator. It talks about lust full occasions, in an idolatrous context, where people do things they normally not do (go against their own nature). It is addressed to the Romans. We know very well what happened in Rome at that point of time. Worshipping the sun (that is why you still have your shabbat on the sunday, christmas, easter (=ishtar), “St” John, etc.), and other pagan customs. Especially of importance is the sex rituals that were part of these pagan rituals. That is what is being addressed in Romans 1. That obviously has nothing to do with normal homosexual relationships, because there is nothing sinful about homosexual relationships. Because they do not violate the two foundational commandments, Love God and Love your Neighbor. We know from Matthew 22:40 that these two commandments are the basis for all other laws and prophets. Gay and straight sex within a idolatrous setting is in contravention with the love god commandment. Gay and straight sex outside that context is perfectly fine… And you can understand that already from the most basic KJV version of the bible. No fancy modern translations required to explain.
          David & Jonathan were probably not homosexual, but they were bi-sexual for sure. And nothing wrong with that, as it has never been a sin in the bible. Same for Ruth & Naomi, or Daniel and his king…

    • ShemSilber

      Omein. That’s the way the tempter lures his victims, like bait on a fishhook. It looks alluring to people, just as the worm or the fly or whatever looks good to the fish, and then yank! and you’re hooked and pulled on in.

      Only the Master Yahushua (Lord Jesus) can save us from the evil one’s traps, but too many people still don’t realize it’s a trap. That’s why Sodom and Gomorrah were struck with fire and brimstone and wiped out in short order, for the Master saw their wickedness and how it would cause this age to end too soon. He made an example of them, for which the evidence is still there by the Dead Sea, but we are either willingly or even defiantly ignorant of it.

      In the judgment, those who have stood their ground with the principles of the Master Yahushua, trusting Him to deliver them from the LGBT enemy, will have more than ample remedy and recourse along with the gift of everlasting life that is available only through the Master Yahushua, and those who have refused the gift of life that He is zealous to give those who choose life will find that they have chosen to remain mortal and thus to die the second death, never to rise again.

      Blest are all those who choose LIFE in the Master Yahushua, omein!

    • Tony

      Judge Not lest Yee be judged. ONLY He had the right to judge and not that of man.

  • Becky

    It was done intentionally by the homosexuals, of course…I mean c’mon…”Christian” mingle. We know their agenda…infiltrate and saturate. Somewhere in their twisted little minds they think that, if they force their way into schools, churches, dating sites, etc., they’re actually being accepted. Ha!

    Warning to all men (sound men, that is)…this just opened the door for the “transgender woman” on this dating site. He’ll get to say he’s a she and unsuspecting men will be allowed to be fooled. Christian mingle needs to change their name asap.

    • Eye Offend

      Maybe if you lost 200 pounds you might find a man.

      • TheBottomline4This

        Says the one with the jaundiced eye. You should seek help for it. It looks hideous, kind of like your heart.

        • Eye Offend

          You are aware, the little graphic by my name is called an “avatar” and it is not a picture of an actual eye. You might want to ask your mommy for some help using the interwebs.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Aw, you think you’re clever. Not.
            Of course I know that silly. Apparently you don’t have a sense of humor. Guess your hateful bigotry has zapped it from you. smh

          • Eye Offend

            You sure think you know a lot about me. Are you God ?

          • TheBottomline4This

            No disgusted Solomon Burke…I’m not God.

          • Eye Offend

            Don’t forget that.

          • TheBottomline4This

            I never thought it fool.

          • Eye Offend

            You just act it.

          • TheBottomline4This

            No fool.
            satan just makes you see it that way.

          • Eye Offend

            You know Satan so well, eh? One minute you think you’re God, the next minute, Satan. You seem to be suffering from classic schizophrenia.

          • TheBottomline4This

            he is your master Solomon Burke.

          • Eye Offend

            Remember what you are saying.

          • TheBottomline4This

            What? That you follow satan?
            Well as Charles has said, you are not following God, so there’s only one other choice, whether you think that or not.

  • meamsane

    The name of the website “Christian Mingle” is misleading since it is not exclusively Christian or owned by a Christian company. It caters to Christians, Mormons, Jews etc. they should consider re-naming it!

  • Amos Moses

    Still so desperate for recognition of what they know is SIN and DEPRAVITY ………….

    • Eye Offend

      Are you without sin? What is that? I can’t hear you? Have you ever sinned? Shut the funk up jackhole.

      • TheBottomline4This

        Wow, what an offended one you are.
        You gay or just support the cause?

        • Eye Offend

          “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” Matthew 7:1

          • TheBottomline4This

            You bigoted, intolerant, jaded, mindless, perverse, sad, unloving liberals LOVE to use that verse…but…you don’t include the following ones… verse 2-5 which say, “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
            We are not to judge hypocritically offended one. Cherry picking verses out of context usually doesn’t wash here buddy. You and your kind can be judged, but we are not to judge you hypocritically.
            Sooo…..You gay or just support the cause?

          • Eye Offend

            Calling me bigoted in one breath and asking me if I’m gay in another. Are you one of those Christian perverts?

          • TheBottomline4This

            Yes, you can be gay and bigoted. You liberals are something else. A bag full of fools.
            No disgusted Solomon Burke, I’m not a perv.
            You seem to be all bent out of shape cause you’re on the wrong side.

          • Eye Offend

            You would know about being gay and bigoted.

          • 201821208 :)

            Yes, you little liberal are bent out of shape. If you weren’t you wouldn’t even come to a Christian site to Troll.

          • Guest

            That’d be you. Solly. 🙂

          • Guest

            Hey, Solomon, what about those of us who just think you’re a troll? And not a very good troll at that. 🙂

          • Amos Moses

            You should continue to read that passage as it is all about HOW to judge ……….. NOT “to never judge” ……….. but nice try ……….

          • Ronald Carter

            It says to “judge righteously” but I don’t think you know what that means. To you, any judgement you make you can call “righteous” and feel like you get a free pass.

          • Amos Moses

            If it is in line with scripture ……………. YEP ……….. and homosexuals being christians …………… AINT ……………

          • Ronald Carter

            There’s not a single reason homosexuals can’t be Christians. If you’d let thieves and criminals be Christian, why wouldn’t you say homosexuals, who are only being true to themselves, could be?

          • Amos Moses

            Except that they are homosexuals ……….. they are lost if they are homosexuals …….. they are not lost because they are are homosexuals ………. they are homosexuals because they are lost ……. and if they are lost …………….. they are not christians …………….

            “If you’d let thieves and criminals be Christian”

            Two HUGE mistakes there ………………. first ………… it is up to Christ …….. not me ……. Christ and the Holy Spirit has declared what it is to be a christain ……….. we do not get to alter what He has laid out ……

            Second ……………… there are no thief christians ……… that is …. a person who says they are a christian …… and continues to steal on a daily basis and CLAIM to be a thief ……….. no such animal ………………..

          • Ronald Carter

            You’re being ridiculous. Homosexuality isn’t mentioned more than a handful of times in the Bible, and some people don’t even think it’s homosexuality that’s being discussed. And yet that’s the one sin that you seem to think is worse than the rest. You’re no different than the Westboro Baptist Church. You’ve focused solely on ONE thing and made the the worst thing of all. Which isn’t just contrary to your Bible, it’s also contrary to Christ’s message of forgiveness and love…which you never seem to pay attention to.

          • Amos Moses

            “Homosexuality isn’t mentioned more than a handful of times in the Bible,”

            Hmmmmm …… so how many times does God have to mention it for your standard to be met ………… do you have a number in mind ………….. and you are going to sit in judgment of God and His word …………..

            Gods standard is ……………

            Deu 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

            Deu 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

            So scripture is saying …………… if it is mentioned two or three times ………… IT IS SUFFICIENT …… Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-28, Jude 1:5-8, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ……………..

            This FAR outweighs and MEETS GODs standard of what is and is not …… 6 witnesses …… in scripture ……….. 2-3 TIMES the needed witnesses to tell you it is WRONG …………

          • Ronald Carter

            Nice dodge, Amos, who gave you carte Blanche to make it the worst one?

          • Amos Moses

            And where did i say it was the worst one ………….. Right ………. i did not ………….. you did ….. and you cannot tell the truth about it …. can you ………

          • Amos Moses

            Gonorrhoea and syphilis on the rise in the UK amid ‘sexual health crisis’, experts warn
            A spike in cases is thought to be particularly affecting gay and bisexual men

            No dodge there …………… SIN is its own judgment ………………

          • Ronald Carter

            Those diseases strike straight people too Amos, and in far greater numbers. Try again. There is no “gay disease”.

          • Amos Moses

            No, …………. just those who reject Christ spreading it ………

          • Ronald Carter

            Those who contract disease are not interested in rejecting Christ.

          • Amos Moses

            Right ……….. they ALREADY HAVE …………

          • Ronald Carter

            You don’t know that. You can’t read the hearts and minds of people you have never met.

          • Amos Moses

            Dont have to ……… Actions speak loudly ………their words and actions and the consequences of that tells all that needs to be known ……..

          • Ronald Carter

            Yes, you have to know them before you can judge them. But your holy book says you shouldn’t judge, either.

          • Amos Moses

            ” But your holy book says you shouldn’t judge, either.”

            Nope ………… no it does not ………..

          • Ronald Carter

            Matthew 7:1. You’re welcome.

          • Amos Moses

            Don’t stop there …………… you need to keep reading to understand what you think it means ……. and it does not mean what you think it means ……….. FAIL ……..

          • Ronald Carter

            I read it, Amos. All that stuff about planks in eyes. And you’ve never really removed those planks from yours, have you? You’re very good at judging others, but you believe your rather unbelievable statements are from God, don’t you? Do you know, I know many kind and loving Christians who are exactly your opposite every respect.

          • Amos Moses

            See ……… you read with the eyes of the natural man ………. who does not understand scripture ……. it says ………… we are to judge …….. but not to judge hypocritically ……….. so if i do not have a particular sin that i am committing …… then i HAVE NO PLANK IN MY EYE….. and i may speak ………. and there are many things i do not speak about …………..

            “You’re very good at judging others”

            Thanx ………… AND SO ARE YOU …………………

          • Ronald Carter

            But Amos, you ARE judging hypocritically. You have several “sins” you are committing, using your own language – you understand so little about your own faith as you break rule after rule after rule. First of all you have the “sin” of pride. You are arrogant and assume you are speaking for God, when perfectly sane Christians would use you as an example of how Christ DIDN’T want you to be. You commit the No True Scotsman fallacy left and right, and you don’t judge anyone righteously but self-righteously. You ignore science and you deny evolution. Do I really need to go on?

          • Amos Moses

            So you ………. who do not know me ………. are judging me ………. but you just said that …… “if you do not know them you cannot judge them” (paraphrase) …………… case closed ……….. you lost …….. FYI, there is no mandate for christian perfection to judge others …….. so you are WRONG about that also ………………

          • Ronald Carter

            All I’m judging you on are things you have said with your own words, which are pretty terrible. Case closed. And you’ve been wrong about everything you’ve ever said.

          • Amos Moses

            “All I’m judging you on are things you have said with your own words, ”

            AS AM I ………. and Gods word is the standard to do that ………….. and you are not even a christian …….. so i really do not understand your complaint ………..

            “And you’ve been wrong about everything you’ve ever said.”

            Right back at ‘cha sport …………..

          • Ronald Carter

            No, Amos. You are judging homosexuals you have never met, based on actions you don’t know for certain they are taking part in. You’re doing it with vague passages from the bible which are even disputed among Christians in terms of their meaning. Your version of Christianity is a repressive, judgmental fear fest, and no one in their right mind would want to be part of it.

          • Amos Moses

            God has judged them as He has judged us all ……….. as SINNERS ……… again ………… all i am doing is REPEATING Gods words …… if you have a problem with that ………….. then talk to Him ……. your problem is with Gods word ……….. not me ………. good luck with that ….

          • Ronald Carter

            No, Amos. YOU have judged them as sinners, and signed God’s name to it, which I’m sure God doesn’t appreciate. I wouldn’t like it if you wrote something crazed and hateful and signed MY name to it, either.

            My problem isn’t with God’s words but with your mangling of them and utter misunderstanding of the words you are reading.

          • Amos Moses

            “No, Amos. YOU have judged them as sinners, and signed God’s name to it,”

            No ………. sorry ………. your problem is with God ….. not me …… stop your whining ………… grow up and be a man ……… not a metrosexual man …. but a real man …..

          • Ronald Carter

            No, Amos. You need to be told over and over that you are not God and you don’t speak for God. I have no problem with God but with people who appoint themselves as His spokesman.

          • Amos Moses

            He has appointed US …………. those who follow Him ………. wrong AGAIN …………

          • Amos Moses

            Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

            Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

            Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

            Romans
            3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
            3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
            3:13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
            3:14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
            3:15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
            3:16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
            3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:
            3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

            Psalm 14:3 They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

          • Amos Moses

            Couple Follows Their Hearts; Billions Dead

            YEP ……… Adam and Eve “followed their hearts” ….. did not have to know them …… the results are ABUNDANTLY clear ……………… and i never met them ……..

          • Ronald Carter

            You didn’t know them, either. You say lots of things without actually knowing.

          • Guest

            Psst – Solomon – read that in context. In other words, that verse condemns what YOU are doing here, not what Bottom Line and others are doing. 🙂

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            …and if you’ll continue and quote the rest of that passage, you’ll see that Matthew 7:1-5 is condemning hypocritical judging — not judging, in general.

            Full context:

            Matthew 7:1-5
            …(1)Judge not, that ye be not judged. (2)For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (3)And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (4)Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam in thine own eye?

            (5)Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye…

            As the saying goes: A text without a context is a pretext.

      • Amos Moses

        And what does that have to do with it ……………..

        • Eye Offend

          You brought sin and depravity up so I ask again, ARE YOU WITHOUT SIN?

          • Amos Moses

            Again, has nothing to do with it ………… but none are without sin …… So What?

  • Truthhurts24

    The abomination continues its effect on every area of society

  • George Betancourt

    Forever hate this sin, Just as Jesus does, especially when there is so few in our society, yet the media and federal homo-loving immoral courts are now promoting an agenda that is contrary to American values and traditions, Christian principles and traditions and civil society’s morale code. All else is trash worthy of a fight. I will never cowtow to perverts or their enablers and their promoters, even in the church.

    • TheBottomline4This

      You are right in saying “few”. The percentages are low overall in the world…with the gays and the trans. The bigoted media does like to make it seem otherwise. Only fools would believe it though.

    • Stephen W.

      In time, you’ll get used to it.

      • George Betancourt

        I don’t normally make promises unless I can keep them.
        Stephen?
        I promise you, I will NEVER “get used to it, when it comes to this vile, sexually predatorial, behavior from people who go against common nature for self pleasure, especially from those who shove the idea in the medias face and society’s Psyche. As all DSM’s for psychology still say…Homosexual behavior is, in fact, a mental disorder and to me, are a hairs-breathe away from pedophilia. Stats back in the 80’s kept by Law enforcement officers in California, showed Queer behavior had a higher rate of sexual violence then those that do not engage in sexual perversions as they embrace. If our society really wants the truth, they should track such behavior and start logging those numbers. But, the problem is, those who control such records are homo-huggers and will never want those number public. This is why California no longer has those numbers that were already logged in the 80’s. Yes, I am saying CA purges records for the common agenda.

        • Stephen W.

          So much hatred will consume you if you let it.

  • Nidalap

    Well, it’s not “Christian” Mingle anymore. Might as well go ahead and change it to Free-For-All Mingle. Perv-Friendly Mingle, perhaps…

  • Jeffery Guimont

    ThiS “capitulation” is no suprise. All of the Sparks websites are for profit businesses that cater to a specific demographic. They are by no means a “Christian” entity, nor should they receive the protections of one. If you want to “mingle” with Christians, find a solid, biblically & doctrinally sound church first, then mingle with those who are of like mind, and of like faith. I think it was Dennis Rainey from Family Life on Moody Bible Radio once said…paraphrasing “Don’t go run around looking for someone, run towards Christ, and if you see someone (a person of the opposite sex) running in the same direction, then that’s the type of mate you consider”

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Then it is no longer Christian. They shouldn’t have yielded.

  • John Buchanan

    you cannot normalize what God calls unnatural and sinful

  • Theophile

    Ezekiel 22:23
    “And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
    Son of man, say unto her, Thou art the land that is not cleansed, nor rained upon in the day of indignation. There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they have made her many widows in the midst thereof.

    Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.

    Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves ravening the prey, to shed blood, and to destroy souls, to get dishonest gain. And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying,
    Thus saith the Lord GOD, when the LORD hath not spoken.

    The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy: yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully.

    And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand
    in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.”

    ## The LORD has declared absolutes / differences, and has “discriminated” between the Holy & the profane… It seems He has problems with “mingling”:

    Leviticus 19:19

    Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind:
    thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

    1919… Hey! that must be a reference to Genesis & Judges 19! .. Or maybe the 1919 19th amendment of “equal suffering” that followed the 6+6+6 amendment…. within a decade the nation was suffering alright…of the great depression!O_o!

  • http://HisPlaceDanville.com Stephen Anderson

    If you do a little research, you will find that “Christian Mingle” is not a Christian company at all. Their parent also as groups like “Mormon Mingle”. They use religion, any religion, to make money.

  • Ronald Carter

    Gee, how bizarre to imagine that someone might be homosexual and also be a Christian.

    • Amos Moses

      We all agree …… you are bizarre ……………..

      • Ronald Carter

        You don’t speak on behalf of anyone but yourself.

  • Robo Man

    Petty to make them change their beliefs, come on. What about all the christian denominations who don’t discriminate against gays. No one is making them change their beliefs, if they still want to believe its a sin that’s fine but if they want to offer a service to the public it has to be offered to EVERYONE indiscriminately.

  • Peter Leh

    Folks, like the bakery and the florist and the B&B, It ALL depends on how you set up your business. This is BUS 101

    • Amos Moses

      Folks, just like homosexual “marriage” …………… give them an inch, and they will take a mile. This is Romans 101 (really Romans 1 1-32) …………

      The Iowa Civil Rights Commission is being sued for claiming it has the right to control the content of church services that are “open to the public.”

      The lawsuit filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of Fort Des Moines Church of Christ is part of a nationwide battle against the implementation of President Obama’s declared foreign-policy priority in his final year in office: “gay” rights.”

      At issue in the Iowa case are state mandates that protect “transgender rights.” Among them are allowing men to enter women’s shower rooms, dressing rooms and restrooms if they say they are women, and banning statements in meetings “open to the public” that “might cause individuals to believe that they are unwelcome because of their perceived gender identity”

      WND ………………

      • Peter Leh

        equal protection has always upset the white southern chrisitan.

      • Peter Leh

        “The Iowa Civil Rights Commission is being sued for claiming it has the
        right to control the content of church services that are “open to the
        public.””

        one can sue for anything. stay within the parameters of the 501C3…..you will be fine. 🙂

        • Amos Moses

          501c3 put a church under state auspices and not Christ ………. a 501c3 church is a state entity ………………so no ……….

          • Peter Leh

            since that is the subject.. yes

      • Stephen W.

        “Folks, just like homosexual marriage, give them an inch, and they will take a mile.”

        Fundamentalist Christians have been doing that for some time now.

        • Amos Moses

          Baloney …………. There is no denomination called “Fundamentalist Christians” ……….. so i do not even know what that is ………….

  • Michex

    Religious-affiliated institutions are supposed to be able to operate within the bounds of their beliefs, which means that Christian Mingle should have been able to exclude homosexual relationships.
    One more piece of evidence of how homosexuals are forcing their beliefs upon Christian institutions.
    Notice that homosexuals almost never launch lawsuits against non-Christians, such as Muslims.

  • jennylynn

    Compromise is never a good thing. They should of fought back in prayer and trusted God to deal with these money grabbers. It would of even been better to close the site than accept sinful lifestyles on their Christian site. I pray the gays wake up and come to Christ who died to set them free from the bondage they embrace.

    Proverbs 29:25
    The fear of man brings a snare, But he who trusts in the LORD will be exalted.

    • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

      Amen.

    • Amos Moses

      Yeah ……… but despite the name ……….. they are not really christians ………….

      • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

        You are right.I keep forgetting that they are a part of the LDS Mormons. A lot of people don’t really know much about them. I do know a lot about them.I was nor raised in a Christian home sadly. But we got trapped in that false religion for a short time.We were in long enough to learn the truth of what they really believe. They don’t tell everyone. They have a lot of strange beliefs.They are wolves in sheep’s clothing. They are not true Christians.

      • jennylynn

        I guess that’s evident now.😊

  • Slidellman4life

    Look, the two homotrolls behind this were not Christians, nor were they intending to get a membership. They went after this website because it was for Christians, period.

  • Stephen W.

    Back in the 1960’s, my Christian uncle found it difficult to begin allowing black customers the use of his gas station restrooms that had previously been reserved for whites only. He wasn’t racist because he sold gas to all his black customers just as he did all his white customers. What he objected to was the unbiblical behavior of race-mixing. Back then, the notion of a black person using the same toilet as a white person was repugnant. But he did his duty and obeyed the law of the land.

    • Amos Moses

      STILL trying to conflate Race and DEPRAVITY …………….. and your comments are STILL RACIST ………………………..

  • David&Jonathan

    The real meaning of marriage:
    A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)”

  • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

    There’s freedom from sin in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ — provided one humbles themselves and repents.

    [Prince, Derek (1998-05-01). They Shall Expel Demons: What You Need to Know about Demons–Your Invisible Enemies (p. 189-191). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.]

    YOUNG MAN DELIVERED OF HOMOSEXUALITY

    In the dramatic account that follows, a pastor in Florida describes his experience in dealing with a young homosexual:

    “Pastor,” the young man in my office wept, “somebody’s got to help me! I can’t go on any longer.” He bent forward in the large platform chair. “Two years ago I was born again. I really love the Lord, but I still have a powerful lust for other men.”

    We waited until he regained his composure.

    “Before I was saved, I was a homosexual. Since then I haven’t committed that sin—but the desire is still in me, and I’m afraid I can’t keep it under control much longer. I went to my pastor for deliverance, but he says it’s impossible for a Christian to have a demon of homosexuality, and that I’ll just have to exercise discipline.”

    He looked at me with distress gripping his face. “But discipline isn’t the answer! I know there’s a perverse spirit in my body. It is there! Deliverance is the only hope I have. Can you help me?” He began weeping again.

    I waited until he had regained his composure. Then I explained, “I wish it were true that Christians were immune to demonic invasion. Unfortunately, our corruptible has not yet ‘put on incorruption,’ and our mortal has not yet ‘put on immortality,’ as it says in 1 Corinthians 15:54. Until that happens, our minds and bodies will still be vulnerable to the enemy. A demon can go anywhere that sin and disease can go. If a Christian can have either of these, he’s also subject to having a demon.”

    He listened intently.

    “Receiving ministry today obligates you to a series of follow-up appointments in the future. This is not a one-time session. Jesus warned that when the unclean spirit leaves a person, it goes through dry places seeking rest and finds none. Ultimately it will return to the same person and try to gain reentry. If it succeeds, that person’s final condition will be worse than before. You absolutely must guard against that happening . To prevent it, you have to maintain a life of devotion to God, fellowship with other Spirit-filled believers, and sincerely read your Bible. Doing that will strengthen your relationship with the Lord.”

    He agreed.

    “I want you to lean back in the chair and listen carefully to what I say,” I went on. “If you comply with God’s terms, you will be set free. The Scripture promises that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered. That promise cannot fail. God will fulfill His covenant word to you. Just be certain you’re in perfect submission to Him.”

    Then I led the young man in a proclamation renouncing every occult, unclean activity in which he had ever been involved. Then he verbally forgave everyone who had ever harmed him, including the men who had abused him sexually in childhood.

    “Forgiving them does not mean you agree with what they did,” I explained. “It simply means that through forgiveness you cut the ropes that keep you tied to the injury they brought into your life.

    “It’s important that you understand I will be speaking directly to the spirit,” I continued, “and not to you . You must listen carefully, but stay out of the way. Don’t allow the demon’s threats to intimidate you, and don’t protect it.”

    He leaned back, eyes closed, as we began.

    In a quiet but authoritative voice, I started quoting Scriptures to the spirit. I chose verses reminding it of Satan’s failure and Jesus’ victory. For example: “Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, [Jesus] Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Hebrews 2:14–15).

    I reminded the spirit that it was as powerless to hinder the success of this ministry as it had been to stop the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

    “And these signs will follow those who believe,” I told the demon, quoting Mark 16:17, “for Jesus said, ‘In My name they will cast out demons.’ ” And again, “‘I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you’ ” (Luke 10:19).

    For about twenty minutes I continued quoting Scripture.

    “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal ,” I went on, quoting 2 Corinthians 10: 4–5, “but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God…”

    Several times the young man smiled at me with a seductive, sexy grin. Recognizing that this was merely a manifestation of the spirit, I continued. Suddenly, when I quoted Romans 16:20, “The God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly,” something amazing happened. The young man twisted sideways in the chair, grabbed the arm with both hands and went into a violent, epileptic-like seizure. His body lurched forward in a furious, hammering fashion, vibrating sideways at the same time. I held him around the waist, giving him as much support as I could. It was ugly. Yes, demons are ugly.

    The sound coming out of him was equally astonishing. A bellowing noise, like that of a wounded bull, roared from his body. The events of Philip’s preaching in Samaria immediately came to mind: “Unclean spirits, crying with a loud voice, came out of many who were possessed” (Acts 8:7); and Jesus’ delivering the afflicted child when “the spirit cried out, convulsed him greatly, and came out of him” (Mark 9:26).

    The seizure lasted several minutes as I continued to rebuke the spirit, commanding it to be quiet and to go. Then, as suddenly as the seizure had begun, the young man collapsed back in the chair, physically and emotionally spent. The room became quiet. The spirit was gone.

    Slowly, reverently, as in worship, the youth raised both arms over his head, weeping and laughing, “It’s gone! It’s gone! I felt it go. Praise God, I’m free! It’s gone!”

    A moment later he rose from the chair, spending the next half hour walking through the offices, singing, laughing, shouting. “Thank You, Jesus! It’s gone! It’s gone! Thank You, Jesus!”

    In that brief period of time, the tormented lifestyle of homosexuality ended. Only its memory would remain.

    I had particular reason to rejoice with this young man. For nearly thirty years of traditional ministry, I had been unable to help people with such crushing problems. I had stood by helplessly and watched as church members were torn apart by situations that deliverance ministry could easily have solved. Some of them even died. That failure, common to most of us pastors, radically changed when I received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and learned about deliverance ministry. Thankfully this young man did not become another of my casualties. The truth had set him free.

    • ShemSilber

      That is a marvelous testimony of the power of the Master Yahushua (Lord Jesus) our Messiah, and may He bless and keep on leading you on into His Kingdom with this deliverance ministry until His return to set His throne in our eternal capital city, Jerusalem, Israel. HalleluYAH for the deliverance this young man received, in the Name of our Master Yahushua, omein!

  • gramps675

    Discrimination wrapped in religious terminology, like “sin”, is still discrimination. And, thankfully, this country is slowly ridding itself of it.

    • Amos Moses

      And it is ridding itself of being a country ………… especially a free country …………. kiss it good bye …… hope you enjoyed yourself …………….

      • gramps675

        Happily. I will kiss discrimination “goodbye!”

        • Amos Moses

          That you are INDISCRIMINATE surprises no one ………

          • gramps675

            I hope so. I wish I could say the same about you.

  • Chrissy Vee

    Oh good grief! They just can’t leave well enough alone. The more victories they believe they win, the more sorrows will befall them. I pity them more than I am angry.

    ~And he (Jesus) said unto them, Ye are they which
    justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that
    which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.~ Luke 16:15

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Kingdom Ambassador

    “Like a trampled spring and a polluted well Is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.” (Prov 25:26)

    Antinomianism fallout!

    For more on how Yahweh’s triune moral law (His Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments, including Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) apply today, see free online book “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page and scroll down to title.

  • Rev Donald Spitz

    For all you love the sinner and hate the sin or homosexuality is just like any other sin people, I hope you are happy now.
    Homosexuality should be criminalized. Homosexuality is a crime against God and against the Holy Bible. After reading this story I know why God wrote:
    Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
    Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: :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: :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.

  • Chet

    They should’ve closed up shop rather than compromise biblical precepts.

  • IzTheBiz

    Sounds like the sheep are being sorted from the goats!

  • Reason2012

    Should have read:
    “A dating site known as Christian Mingle has agreed to open its website for matching those who make it clear they are not Christian following a class-action discrimination suit filed in federal court.”
    Which of course now make Christian Mingle useless.