Thursday, January 20, 2011

Twenty days in...

It's twenty days into the New Year and I wish all a belated "Happy New Year"! I hope to finish up with the dialogue I'm having with Kumtekmeon soon. I've had a lot on my plate thus far and I can't believe that we are already 20 days into the new year. So far, it has all the earmarks of a fast paced year (or maybe I'm just ultra busy). To be fair to "Kumtekmeon", he did send me quite the voluminous response some time back. I just haven't had the opportunity to respond. Yet, unfortunately for Kumtekmeon, he repeats the same old nonsense about the alleged "gay love story" between David and Jonathan. The argument always amazes me considering it's novelty. Throughout Judeo-Christian history, no one has EVER interpreted David and Jonathan as a homosexual couple, but leave it to liberal theologians and the homosexual agenda to make that attempt. It doesn't surprise me though, considering that nothing is sacred to those who wish to justify sin. Kumtekmeon fairs no better considering he tries to justify it all the same, but is met with futility and nothing more. Well, until I can muster the time to get to that response, I encourage all to read a couple of refutations on this assertion.
J.P. Holding's "Was King David gay?"
Also, there is a very well written article by Reese Currie with a concise refutation of pro-gay arguments. You can find it here: "Pro-Homosexual Arguments Examined."
It's sad to see homosexuals, such as Kumtekmeon, trying so desperately to justify their sin and still remain within the pale of Christianity. It is sadder to see the deception of others who attempt to give "answers" but provide nothing more than revisionism. And, yet, the saddest thing of all is when those who call themselves "Christians" preach a false gospel of false grace, false love, and false acceptance, and yet ignore that repentance and obedience is the evidence of true grace, true love, and true acceptance. Anything else is but pure idolatry. I can only hope that homosexuals, just as all sinners, can look beyond their own desires. Isn't that the carnal man? One who believes that God accepts our sin simply because we desire it. God is unchanging regardless of those who wish to change Him.


Anonymous said...

(Kumtekemon's responsee)
I've read your links and all they've done were to REPEAT the mistranslations that you so love to spout. For one, I at no time was discussing whether David and Jonathan were married in the instituted norm of the day. It is very ignorant to think that 'marriage' is purely ceremonial. Marriage is truly a covenant between two people and this act begins BEFORE the couple is wedded! D&J could possibly be considered 'married' by their covenant of LOVE and their intimate rituals and expressions of that love. Aren't you aware of Alexander the Great and his lover Hephaestion? Your ground that because David and Johnathan had wives PROVES how IGNORANT you are on the topic of homosexuality! In those ancient days there was a responsibility to carry on the blood line, especially for ruling a kingdom. There were no agencies offering surrogacy as an option. So to say because a man marries a woman, means he's not gay, speaks to a HIGH LEVEL of obliviousness! Even in our culture today, because of people like YOU, many gays and lesbians marry into heterosexual relationships; THAT doesn't make them straight. All it does is to cause more social imbalances, for example, the Down Low factor, unnecessary divorces etc!

Churchmouse, your ignorance has forsaken you. The time you are here WASTING to continue the abuse and oppression of gay people, you would use it to follow Jesus' commands. Jesus commanded us to GO into all nations and teach ALL that HE has commanded. You are YET to show me where Jesus instructed us to go about oppressing homosexuals.

Churchmouse said...


As you have noticed, I haven't bothered to comment on your response here. I leave it as an example of someone who isn't getting it and allows his sexual preferences to dictate his religiosity. I mean, who asserted anything about "marriage"? Yet, you make it seem that I did. And, once again, you assume that David and Jonathan carried a homosexual relationship when even gay advocates can only "theorize" the possibility. None, to my knowledge, has EVER come out with any certainty. Neither has anyone made the claim, or even implied, that a gay man who marries a woman is evidence of his heterosexuality. Evidently, there are many gays who have attempted a hetero relationship only to fall away. So, in anything, you're building a straw man.

As anyone can see, your argument is, once again, built under the premise that David and Jonathan were gay lovers (again, an assumption that even gay advocates will claim no certainty). Unless, you have certitude you have no real argument.

So, I repeat, I leave your response here as an example of incoherency. Furthermore, it is an example of the rhetoric you continue to thrust. In other words, it isn't enough that you would attempt to put up arguments I didn't make, but that you would continue to throw words, such as the continual claims of "ignorance", peppered with implications that I am an oppressor and abuser of homosexuals, is but further evidence of your inability to support your premise.

Hopefully, at some point, you will cut the rhetoric, wave away the smokescreens, and actually make an argument that is worth the time and effort? Is there that possibility?


Rhology said...

Hi CM,

Would you mind emailing me, please? I have a brief request. Thank you!

Who links to my website?