Will gays EVER be accepted by mainstream Christianity?

[KCKID]

The Mainstream Christian Church (i.e. the 'Christian Church' in general) appears to have an unshakable belief that gay people cannot possibly be Christians. Therefore gay people will always be regarded as 'lepers' because the mainstream Church believes that homosexuality is against the will of God and the actual practicing of such is a 'grave sin'. This is in spite of the fact that nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality referred to as a grave sin. This more comes from the minds of people who have received a life time of brainwashing into believing this. Where homosexual activity IS mentioned in scripture it almost always - in fact, PROBABLY always - refers to the practice of idolatry and not as WE today refer to homosexuality. There are those Christians who are so appalled at the notion that gay people might desire to integrate with 'actual Christians' within their Church community that they suggest gays start their own denomination ...minus the 'Christian' prefix, of course, which would be sacrilege. Such folks want nothing to do with homosexual people and their minds appear to be set on this.

Below is a recent item from The Guardian that tells of the plight of gay Christians in Uganda. In our particular neck of the woods (probably the majority of those of us who participate on the forum) gays have no fear of state imposed death or life imprisonment as do those in places such as Uganda. Gays do, however, have a stigma placed on them by most Christians that results in rejection by the mainstream Church and, indeed, by God himself. And, of course, the rejection of God is tantamount to death or, worse still, eternal torment. The latter makes the penalty imposed on gays in Uganda pale by comparison.

Will mainstream Christianity ever be accepting of people whose only 'sin' is that they happen to be gay ...i.e. an involuntary sexual attraction between two people of the same gender? If not, why not? Please, give your HONEST reasons.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/f ... ry-kampala

Sunday is a special day in Uganda, the conservative east African country that is threatening to put gay people behind bars for life. On Sunday you can see families flocking to churches all over the country for prayer, wearing their best clothes.

The sermons are predictable. Church leaders will pray for divine intervention against the corrupt leaders, poverty and the potholed roads, and then finally call doom upon the country's homosexuals who are sinning against the Christian God and ruining African culture.

But not at a tiny church tucked away in one of Kampala's suburbs. Here, gay people meet in devoted challenge to mainstream denominations that have declared them outcasts. With dread-locked hair and in jeans and bathroom slippers, members of this congregation would stand out in the prim and proper evangelical church I sometimes go to. I feel overdressed in my white dress.

"Here we are all about freedom," Pepe Onziema, a gay rights activist tells me. "It is a universal church. We welcome people whether gay or straight."

The gates may be open but the road to the church that calls itself a friendship and reconciliation centre is not paved with sleek cars or thronged with believers. The worshippers trickle in. They take their seats, but not before surveying the crowd furtively, trying to identify everyone. Their life depends on this vigilance.

In Uganda, police raid homes and arrest those they suspect to be gay. Homosexuality is an offence under the penal code. The president, Yoweri Museveni, refuses to pass a bill that seeks to strengthen the punishments for homosexuality to include life imprisonment, but isnt under pressure to do so. Conservative Christian churches, under the auspices of the Uganda Joint Christian Council, refuse to accept homosexuals in spite of more gay-friendly approaches from parent churches abroad. The anti-gay furnace is fanned by American evangelical churches that have made it their mission to free Africa of homosexuality, saying it is alien to African culture.

The gay Ugandan church seeks to spread an alternative gospel of love and acceptance for all. On this particular Sunday, it is the memorial of David Kato, a gay rights activist who was murdered in 2011. So the numbers are bigger than usual. When the church was started by Bishop Christopher Senyonjo (who has since been thrown out of the Anglican Church for ministering to gay people), the gay community in Uganda attended devotedly. But with arrests and growing anti-gay sentiments, threats to their lives and arrests, fewer and fewer people come to the church.

"Our numbers have reduced ever since we started in 2008," Denis, the chaplain and a primary school teacher, tells me. "It is worse now that the bill has been passed." If Denis's employees knew of his orientation or his calling, he would certainly lose his job. "This is the only place we can feel at home. Here we can worship God without feeling guilty or fearing persecution."

Joining a gay congregation in Uganda is risky but Onziema says it is necessary in a society that greatly values community. For on Sundays, when many Ugandans spend time with their families, most gay people have nowhere to go. "Coming here lets us know that we are not alone and gives us the strength to continue the struggle," Onziema says.

You can see both hope and fear in the eyes of the congregation as they read Bible verses proclaiming God's protection over them and sing "What a friend we have in Jesus".

Here, there are no thunderous shouts of praise, speaking in tongues or Bible-thumping that is characteristic of the evangelism that is so trendy in the country. In the quiet worship of Uganda's gay community, there is a still hope and the kind of courage you can only muster after you have seen it all and there is nothing left to fear. Sunday is also the day gay people in Uganda cast off their masks to chat about the latest fashion, cars and celebrities.

"You thought we were going to pray that God stops the anti-homosexuality bill," Mugisha, the head of Sexual Minorities Uganda, asks me with laughter and mischief in his voice. "It will not pass. We do not need to pray for that."

Mugisha is for a moment free from his job, his life, fighting for the basic human rights of gay people. "I come here for the community. It is better than staying home alone," he says. As the service ends, members of the congregation are asked to say something in memory of David Kato, whose spirit of resilience they will need as they walk out of the church into their daily routine.

"We know he did not die in vain," Mugisha says. "One day we shall be accepted."

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 266 by KCKID]

Yes, there do appear to be a number of inconsistencies between the Gospels and Paul. Perhaps a new thread might be in order? I'm sure it would be quite popular as it would seem that a number of people on this forum agree with you. It could make an interesting read.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=25904

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 266 by KCKID]

Yes, there do appear to be a number of inconsistencies between the Gospels and Paul. Perhaps a new thread might be in order? I'm sure it would be quite popular as it would seem that a number of people on this forum agree with you. It could make an interesting read.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=25904

Thanks. I don't know how I missed that thread.

[99percentatheism]

ThePainefulTruth

[Replying to post 251 by help3434]


Fine. None of the above organizations are representatives of Jesus. The Christian Church is . . .

Well, Jesus' endorsement is a matter of opinion/pure faith. But I'm sure Paul would approve.

"Faith?" It's a matter of history. It's a matter of reality, truth.

(and, according to scripture, He came to be the substitute for our sins)

Of all the things I disagree with/don't like about Christianity (Paulism), that's at the top of the list, and it's the core tenet. No one, not even God, can assume responsibility for another.

Why would any Christian care about why a non or anti Christian disagrees with or dislikes Christianity? But I notice you made a pronouncement (bolded above) as the ultimate authority. An ultimate decision. Kind of godlike don't you think? Now, can I disagree with your immutability?

Repentance (and restitution if possible) is the only way one can achieve salvation. Both Jesus and JohnTB cried our for repentance.

What religion are you espousing? ThePainefulTruthianty? ThePainefulTruthism?

Jesus has been turning over in his grave at all the pagan modifications Paul proclaimed in his name.

Um, Jesus was resurrected from his tomb before "Saul" became "Paul." You know that right? I mean according to the New Testament.

one might also perhaps take creative license to presume that His alleged statement to the harlot could have been tongue-in-cheek. I mean, Jesus had already sent the harlot's accusers packing ...then, when asked by Jesus, "Where are your accusers?" the harlot acknowledged that they had fled ...then, Jesus said what He said to the woman knowing that she was incapable of not sinning. This IS scripture. Christians put their own slant on scripture all the time, so ...why not I?

Neither prostitution nor homosexuality are issues of morality, but rather of individually determined virtue; and while virtues are subject to social pressure, they should never be deemed to be immoral/criminal acts or punished as such.

Thus saith ThePainefulTruth. And as I always say, you ( and anyone else) are free to invent any new religion you so immutablize.

But in Christian reality both behaviors are sins. And of coursem then needing to be repented of.

They came seeking the "men" he took in.

Yeah . . .so ...?

As you said, rape is gender neutral.

Is "rape" a sin?

You're quibbling anyway, there are several other verses

Not in the Sodom and Gomorrah story and that's what we were talking about. So, no quibbling at all.

proscribing homosexuality, such as:

"Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." Lev 18:22

This text has been discussed and qualified a number of times on this very forum. However, for those who actually would care to abide by the Levite Holiness Code, there are a further 660-some weird and wonderful commands for them to consider.

There are more than that one, and they are very plain. The issue isn't just S&G, it's the Bible's proscription on it and thus the church's.

Whenever it was, Judaism and Christianity have been vigorously anti-homosexual since then, making that mistranslation just like all the many others, along with the ones that were original demagoguery--the "Word of God".

I don't believe that much of Judaism today is as vigorously anti-homosexual as it may have been in the past.

No, but neither is Christianity, especially compared to Islam. Nevertheless it's there, and it's in the Bible, shy why the crusade.

But it's NOT in the Bible. And THAT is why 'the crusade'. This IS a debate forum and any scriptures that you present for debate will not, I promise you, be ignored. That said, these same scriptures have been discussed at length elsewhere on the forum.

The quote above is undeniably anti-homosexual and there are others like it.

Zuh-wap!

Just like that. Simple.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 266 by KCKID]

Yes, there do appear to be a number of inconsistencies between the Gospels and Paul. Perhaps a new thread might be in order? I'm sure it would be quite popular as it would seem that a number of people on this forum agree with you. It could make an interesting read.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=25904

That thread deals with Paul's Roman citizenship. Not his Gospel - ness.

Can you show where Paul's theology doesn't agree with the Gospels?

[Haven]

"Faith?" It's a matter of history. It's a matter of reality, truth.

You've made this unsubstantiated claim over and over again. Do you have any empirical evidence that your religious beliefs are, in fact, true?

Your religion-fueled anti-gay opinions mean nothing unless your beliefs correspond to reality.

[KCKID]

"Faith?" It's a matter of history. It's a matter of reality, truth.

You've made this unsubstantiated claim over and over again. Do you have any empirical evidence that your religious beliefs are, in fact, true?

Your religion-fueled anti-gay opinions mean nothing unless your beliefs correspond to reality.

I don't believe that those who are especially militantly opposed to homosexuality are religiously-driven. If they were they would also be leading similar campaigns against other allegedly Bible "no-no's" ...notably divorce and remarriage within the Church. But they're not doing this ...it's all 'homosexuality' and little else. Why is this?? Something such as divorce and remarriage that is clearly a violation of "the Gospel Truth" - but is generally accepted by 'the Church' - should be 'nmero uno' on their 'sin' radar. That it isn't - but that homosexuality is - should surely raise suspicion in every thinking person. This is why I'd like those scriptures that are commonly used to condemn homosexuality brought to the table and discussed in their exegetical, cultural and local context. If these scriptures are so analyzed in the above described manner and found to relate to none other than pagan idol worship and temple prostitution as I and others believe they do, then 'the militants' have been disarmed! On the other hand, they could be found to have been correct all along. As mentioned previously, we start out on a level playing field. No one is right. No one is wrong.

What disturbs me, however, is that even if those scriptures were found to mean other than what the majority of Christians believe they mean ...the gay witch-hunt would undoubtedly still continue. AND these very same scriptures would STILL be used to support the hunt. Most of us find being wrong intimidating and so we have the tendency to dig in our heels even more to save face. Reminds me of the old adage: There are none so deaf as those who don't want to hear. There are none so blind as those who don't want to see.

All of this bickering back and forth really is a waste of time. Perhaps better to step back and allow this form of judgmental Christianity to die a natural death as it probably will given time.

[ThePainefulTruth]

ThePainefulTruth

[Replying to post 251 by help3434]


Fine. None of the above organizations are representatives of Jesus. The Christian Church is . . .

Well, Jesus' endorsement is a matter of opinion/pure faith. But I'm sure Paul would approve.

"Faith?" It's a matter of history. It's a matter of reality, truth.

And I'm sure Paul would agree.

[KCKID]

The Bible, when read in its exegetical, cultural, environmental and religious/superstitious context, appears to make no reference to homosexuality as we today define the term. There is no 'conspiracy' or 'agenda' attached to this statement ...it appears to be a fact! The actual word "homosexual", or even a Hebrew or Greek equivalent term, ever appeared in the original manuscripts of the Bible. Furthermore, when the term "homosexual" DID appear in later 'revised' editions of the Bible it was used, not by its actual definition as "one who is sexually attracted to another of the same gender", but as a derogatory term! Whenever the term "homosexual" appeared (even though in only a half dozen or so places in the entire Bible) it was equated to "sin"by the authors. This alone should set alarm bells ringing. But, for the most part ...it doesn't appear to.

For a time I grew up in a society that mostly, I would say, believed that black people were bad people. They were not like the majority of us (white) folks and so we were generally afraid or suspicious or mistrusting of them. Murderers and thieves were predominantly black as portrayed by the popular media. Moreover, this was pretty much confirmed by their over-representation within the prison system. Yes, "black" pretty much equated to "criminal". We didn't know why we felt this way ...we were merely conditioned by our culture and no actual reasons were necessary. We were sheep and we followed 'everyone else' without question.

We have a similar situation with regard to Christianity and its unreasonable fear of - and therefore its condemnation of - homosexuals. It's been a part of a conditioning process by Christendom - either by default or by design - over the last few decades and much of Christianity has fallen for it. Most have no exegetical knowledge of scripture. Most, if asked, would not know where the so-called homosexual 'clobber texts' are found. They just know that "they're in the Bible somewhere." Most of us, though we might not like to admit this, have minds that soak up and believe whatever 'the wise ones' tell us. It's part of being human, I guess.

Anyway, what about those notorious 'clobber texts' of the Bible that some Christians use - and many others follow - to condemn homosexuality? Do they really condemn homosexuality? Well, a superficial reading of them might well suggest that they do. The MOST notorious of such scriptures come from the Old Testament. They are Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. There is NO QUESTION that these two texts condemn homosexuality ...right?

Well, in the following post I'd like to present a couple of items that might shed some new light (for some) with regard to those scriptures. If it's possible, I would ask that those interested would read (and view) these items with an open mind. And, afterwards, I ask for educated input and also reasons given for such input. "This is just gay propaganda!" is not acceptable input on a forum where discussions are encouraged and expected . . .

[KCKID]

aphttp://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical ... ticus.html

These two verses in Leviticus read as follows in the King James Version:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

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 be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Before delving into these two verses, it would be helpful to read How Language is Interpreted, which is part of the discussion of Romans 1. If we wish to understand the true meaning of these verses, we must look at their context, both textual and historical. Until we understand what prompted these rules in Old Testament times, we will not be able to determine if the rules should be applied to the case of two people in committed, loving relationship.

The text itself gives us a big clue as to the intended meaning. Three different times we are specifically told that the rules set forth in chapters 18 and 20 are meant to prevent the Israelites from doing what the Egyptians and Canaanites did. (See note 1.) The term Canaanites refers to the group of nations who lived in the land into which the Israelites migrated when they left Egypt. It follows, therefore, if we can determine what type of homosexual behavior was common among the Canaanites and Egyptians, we will better understand what these verses were meant to prohibit.

Biblical historians tell us the Canaanite religions surrounding the Israelites at the time of Leviticus often included fertility rites consisting of sexual rituals. These rituals were thought to bring the blessing of the god or goddess on crop and livestock production. During the rituals, whole families, including husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, cousins, aunts and uncles would sometimes have sex. Also included was sex with temple prostitutes. In short, every kind of sexual practice imaginable was performed at these rituals, including homosexual sex. (See note 2.)

Consider one specific example. Historians tell us that many Canaanites and Egyptians worshipped a goddess of love and fertility called Astarte or Ishtar. Within her temples were special priests called assinu, who were deemed to have special powers. Physical contact with the assinu was believed to ward off evil and promote good luck. These priests were, in effect, living good luck charms, and worshipers would often ritually touch them as part of their worship practices. Sexual intercourse was considered especially effective for gaining the goddesss favor, because the male worshiper was offering his greatest possession, semen (which was thought to be the essence of life), to the goddess through her priests. Depositing semen in the body of a priest of the goddess was believed to guarantee ones immortality. Similar cultic sexual practices flourished in connection with many other ancient pagan deities. (See note 3.)

This is what was going on in Canaan and Egypt at the time the Levitical rules were announced " homosexual temple prostitution. And as already noted, Leviticus 18 and 20 specifically say they were written to address pagan religious practices. Leviticus 18 begins with the admonition, You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. (18:3) Chapter 20 is even more specific, beginning with an injunction against the pagan practices associated with a god named Molech. And both chapters include long lists of sexual practices common in the cultic rituals we mentioned above. However, neither of them speaks to the question of whether two people of the same sex can live in loving relationship with the blessing of God.

In fact, historians tell us our model of loving, long-term homosexual relationships did not meaningfully exist in Canaanite culture. This was a tribal culture in which it would have been virtually impossible to form such relationships. Offspring were essential to survival in this primitive agricultural economy. Moreover, there were rigid distinctions between womens work and mens work. If two men had lived together as a couple, for example, one of them would have been placed in the position of doing womens work, and the presence of a man working among the women of the village would not have been tolerated. (See note 4.)

It simply is not reasonable to believe the author of Leviticus intended to prohibit a form of homosexual relationship that did not exist at the time. When read in textual and historical context, the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20 are clearly directed at homosexual temple prostitution, and that is how they should be applied. Some people may object, saying, But if you ignore the context and just read the words of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in black and white, they appear to prohibit all sex between men, not just sex in pagan rituals. But that is the whole point: The meaning of words depends on context. Remember, the words of 1 Corinthians 11 also appear to require long hair and head coverings for all women in all circumstances. But, because we have studied the context, we know that is not what was meant. A text taken out of context is pretext. Lets apply the same common-sense rule here.

The Leviticus passages were clearly written in the context of pagan religious ritual. Since we are not bringing a question about the appropriateness of cultic sex practices for modern Christians, we can safely set aside these clobber passages.

Note 1. Leviticus 18:2-3, 18:24, and 20:23.

Note 2. Some recent scholarship has called this truism into question (e.g., see the article The end of the male cult prostitute: A literary-historical and sociological analysis of Hebrew qades-qadesim [Source: Congress Volume, pages 37-80, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1997] by Phyllis A. Bird, published in the Vetus Testamentum, 66). But even if these practices were not as prevalent as scholars once thought, the biblical text indicates the biblical authors believed they were, and their writings are based on that factual premise. See also, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World by Martti Nissinen, pages 41-42, for a discussion of this.

Note 3. For a lengthy discussion of the worship of Asstarte/Ishtar, see The Construction of Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press, 1988), David F. Greenberg, pages 95-97.

Note 4. Greenberg, page 92.

For a visual description of Leviticus 20:13 please watch the below video (8:27) entitled The Truth About Leviticus & Homosexuality.



Also see:

[99percentatheism]

"Faith?" It's a matter of history. It's a matter of reality, truth.

You've made this unsubstantiated claim over and over again. Do you have any empirical evidence that your religious beliefs are, in fact, true?

Your religion-fueled anti-gay opinions mean nothing unless your beliefs correspond to reality.

I totally enjoy how incredibly often my posts are cherry-picked for comebacks, and with the usual political spin and propaganda tactics all in a row. It's like watching MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show. Or then again, most every other show on MSNBC.

Now are you saying that Jesus, his mission in Roman-Judea, the resurrection, the Apostles, the writings known as the New Testament, etc., etc., "the Christian faith" is not part of history? There are only certain kinds of people that call themselves Christians that do not believe that everything I just referenced is empirically based. The New Testament does a good job of presenting "what happened" in an empirical and historical context. What you have here in appearance (I guess I could be wrong there), is you on one side of history, denying it, and I on the other supporting it. You for pro-homosexuality reasons (note the thread we're in), which have no support in the New Testament and I for representing what is in the New Testament.

And as I have always maintained, you have the right to believe what you want. You can even personally retain the word "gay" to replace the word homosexual. You can do that with all of the same freedom that I have in the right to maintain the historical witness of the New Testament. This thread is about "Will gays EVER be accepted by mainstream Christianity?" And that answer bears as much prophetic weight as it does secular political power.

This is certainly nothing we haven't already experienced in history:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel" which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under Gods curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under Gods curse!

Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Paul, to Christians in Galatia

. . . As a result, they do not live the rest of their earthly lives for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do"living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry.

They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you.

1 Peter 4

Haven,

You are not a Christian. OK. I have several friends who are not a Christian. But, why can't "LGBT's (and Q's a +'s) that make that claim, start their own denominations, or keep to the ones that encourage homosexuality? There is no support for engaging in same gender sex acts anywhere in the New Testament and several places that make it clear, and immutably so, that marriage is man and woman/husband and wife and sexual behavior "for Christians" is within a marriage.
Why is there a need for gay pride and gay liberation, to be plied into and onto every Christian and Christian Church on earth?

Please respond to my posts point for point for point if you don't mind.