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 isn’t 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."

[dianaiad]

How many Christians went to their death as martyrs for no other reason than for preaching the Gospel?

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

In psychology, a person who has a martyr complex desires the feeling of being a martyr for his/her own sake, seeking out suffering or persecution because it feeds a psychological need.

Here is what the Sodomites threatened Lot with for "preaching" to them:

“Get out of our way,� they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.� They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

- Genesis 19

Was Lot a judgmental religious bigot?

What could be "worse" to have happen to a person than a mob of men commiting gang rape on the two same gender visitors to Lot?

What would be the condition of a person's life if they had their business boycotted and shut down for no other reason than believing in marriage as Jesus defined it?

I received a mod warning for stating that 99percent would be back with more red herrings, subterfuge and scriptures irrelevant to the topic. Need I say more ...?

Moderator Warning


Yes, you did, and you should have paid attention to it. Address the content of the posts, not the writers of them.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[99percentatheism]

Joab
[Replying to post 88 by 99percentatheism]

I've brought this to your attention previously.

Not only is marriage in the bible not immutably man and woman, it can and has been between two different species.

"Species?" Species?

Care to prove that?

Those "angels" impregnated their "wives." Ever studied anatomy and biology?

Your theology is interesting to note, but it still cannot posit affirming or celebarting anything to do with homosexuality.

Angels and women. Straight out of the bible 99.

Angels that took wives. No homosexuality need apply. Or be applied.

When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.�

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them.

- Genesis 6

Your claim is thus refuted by your GOD.

How do Angels impregnate human women? It isn't by becoming same gender lovers.

Thus your theology proves that there is still no support for homosexuality anywhere in the Bible. Not even in the supernatural realm.

[Joab]

[Replying to post 91 by 99percentatheism]

The angels were not HUMAN, so no homosexuality but maybe bestiality or xenosexuality is approved by your god.

Still it proves beyond any doubt that marriage in the bible is not immutably man and woman.

That's is your whole argument shot down in flames.

[99percentatheism]

Joab
[Replying to post 91 by 99percentatheism]

The angels were not HUMAN, so no homosexuality but maybe bestiality or xenosexuality is approved by your god.

Prove where God approved of the Angels doing what they did?

Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that these angels didn't become lesbians and take wives from among the daughters of men.

Oops.

Still it proves beyond any doubt that marriage in the bible is not immutably man and woman.

Mmm I don't think so.

That's is your whole argument shot down in flames.

"Who or actually "what" did Jacob wrestle with?

Oh, and Angels walking around the planet? How do they do that?

Well let's see shall we?

The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.'

Two of those "three men" were the two Angels that visitied Lot and smoked the Sodomites for wanting to engage in homosexual rape with them.

Oh, I think my theology is just about as sound as the kind of sexual behaior it takes to make a child. Hint: It isn't gay sex. Another hint: Not one word of support for homosexuality anywhere in the entire Bible.

[Joab]

[Replying to post 93 by 99percentatheism]

[center]THE ANGELS WERE NOT HUMAN[/center]

The non-humans, ie non-man, married women. Marriage in the bible is not immutably man and woman

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 93 by 99percentatheism]

[center]THE ANGELS WERE NOT HUMAN[/center]

The non-humans, ie non-man, married women. Marriage in the bible is not immutably man and woman

You can huff and puff but you can't blow down the house of the angels that became men to marry women. It is clear from the context of the Biblical record, that those angels became men. Otherwise " different species" have a very difficult time making offspring. A cat and a dog don't make catdog babies.

Thus, in a thread about forcing The Church (mainstream Christianity) to celebrate homosexuals and homosexuality (gays) your theology is powerless to force that issue.

Although it does align well with entities leaving the place where they belong and forcing their ways on others. Once again, there is no support for homosexuality anywhere in the entire Bible. Even in the supernatural realm.

[Joab]

[Replying to post 93 by 99percentatheism]

[center]THE ANGELS WERE NOT HUMAN[/center]

The non-humans, ie non-man, married women. Marriage in the bible is not immutably man and woman

You can huff and puff but you can't blow down the house of the angels that became men to marry women. It is clear from the context of the Biblical record, that those angels became men. Otherwise " different species" have a very difficult time making offspring. A cat and a dog don't make catdog babies.

Thus, in a thread about forcing The Church (mainstream Christianity) to celebrate homosexuals and homosexuality (gays) your theology is powerless to force that issue.

Although it does align well with entities leaving the place where they belong and forcing their ways on others. Once again, there is no support for homosexuality anywhere in the entire Bible. Even in the supernatural realm.

Angels became men? Then why did they produce giants? Men and women very rarely produce large offspring, so are you sure they became men? How did they do that? Did they change back to angels at anytime? Where do you get this story of angels becoming men? Certainly not from the bible.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 93 by 99percentatheism]

[center]THE ANGELS WERE NOT HUMAN[/center]

The non-humans, ie non-man, married women. Marriage in the bible is not immutably man and woman

You can huff and puff but you can't blow down the house of the angels that became men to marry women. It is clear from the context of the Biblical record, that those angels became men. Otherwise " different species" have a very difficult time making offspring. A cat and a dog don't make catdog babies.

Thus, in a thread about forcing The Church (mainstream Christianity) to celebrate homosexuals and homosexuality (gays) your theology is powerless to force that issue.

Although it does align well with entities leaving the place where they belong and forcing their ways on others. Once again, there is no support for homosexuality anywhere in the entire Bible. Even in the supernatural realm.

Angels became men? Then why did they produce giants? Men and women very rarely produce large offspring, so are you sure they became men?

How did they impregnate women?

Ever see an NBA player's wife that is tiny compared to "him?" Yet their offspring can many times grow up to be a tall basketball player. I personally know some NFL players that are huge offensive linemen that married tiny women. Their offspring are big kids.

How did they do that? Did they change back to angels at anytime?

They are supernatural beings. How did "God" change from a man to the Lord before and after wrestling with Jacob?

Where do you get this story of angels becoming men? Certainly not from the bible.

Very certainly from the Bible:

From the Tanakh, Bereshit (Genesis) 18:

1 And HaShem appeared unto him by the terebinths of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

2 and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood over against him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed down to the earth,

3 and said: 'My lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant.

4 Let now a little water be fetched, and wash your feet, and recline yourselves under the tree.

5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and stay ye your heart; after that ye shall pass on; forasmuch as ye are come to your servant.' And they said: 'So do, as thou hast said.'

6 And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said: 'Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes.'

7 And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetched a calf tender and good, and gave it unto the servant; and he hastened to dress it.

8 And he took curd, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.

- https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/js ... sis18.html

They became men to eat the food prepared for them by another man. Do Angels need to eat veal, breads and cottage cheese?

And of course from the New Testament:

And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

- Jude

Now, in all honesty, I don't know how Angels "do it" but sexual intercourse with humans follows a natural path.

Oh and by the way, there is no marriage in heaven at all. Per the Son of God, Jesus.

Now follow the logic of why angels had to become men to "marry" women.

I must say, this is the most impressive discussion I have had with someone on these threads in a very, very long time.

[KCKID]

Oh, I think my theology is just about as sound as the kind of sexual behaior it takes to make a child. Hint: It isn't gay sex.

Well, yet again the notion that God made sex specifically for procreation has been raised. If God DID intend sex for reproduction only then gay sex is definitely out. However, if the purpose of sex was and is intended predominantly for the bonding and the physical and psychological needs of a man and a woman, then sex can be whatever one decides it to be as long as it isn't used in ways that harm others or infringes on their equal right of self-determination. Parts of the dialogue I use here can be found in the below article which I think most will find interesting:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat ... ocreation/

Is Sex for Procreation?
February 2, 2008 By Adam Lee

“Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as ‘natural law.’ The natural law purpose of sex is procreation.
…sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation.�
—http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Among Christian religions, it is a common teaching that the “natural� purpose of sex is for the creation of children, and that any other reason for sex is sinful and a subversion of God’s law. This belief underlies a great deal of Christian attitudes toward sex, including the religious right’s condemnation of homosexuality and extramarital sex and the Roman Catholic church’s opposition to birth control.

However, while the overtly theocratic manifestations of this belief – denying civil rights to gay couples, denying emergency contraception to rape victims, attempting to ban pornography, refusing to teach young adults accurate information about sex, opposing the development of vaccines for STDs – have been attacked, and rightfully so, as far as I am aware the belief itself has rarely been challenged. That is unfortunate, because as in many other things, this is an area where the religious right stands on very shaky ground. This post will accordingly examine the facts, or lack thereof, supporting this belief.

First of all, it would seem that if the purpose of sex – the reason for sex’s existence – is procreation, then all or most acts of sex should result in pregnancy. However, this is not the case among human beings. Consider what anthropologist Jared Diamond has to say in his book The Third Chimpanzee:

…even young newlyweds who omit contraception and make love at maximum frequency have only a 28 percent probability of conception per menstrual cycle. Animal breeders would be in despair if a prize cow had such low fertility, but in fact they can schedule a single artificial insemination so that the cow has a 75 percent chance of being fertilized! (p.77)

As Diamond points out, human beings are far less fertile than most animal species. And, please note, the numbers Diamond quotes are for young newlyweds. Human fertility declines steeply as we age, especially in women but also in men. Female fertility peaks between the ages of 20 and 24, begins to decline as early as the late 20s, and drops off more sharply during the 30s. By age 45, the vast majority of women are infertile (1, 2). Even if an older woman does become pregnant, her chance of miscarriage remains substantially higher than a younger woman’s.

The Bible itself says that the human lifespan is between seventy and eighty years (Psalms 90:10), and given the advances in lifespan brought about by improved nutrition and modern medicine, we can safely use the higher estimate. We should then ask why, if sex is intended for procreation, it is all but impossible to use it for that purpose for about half of our natural lives. Even during the biologically brief window of maximum fertility, our rate of conception is significantly lower than that of most other animals. If sex’s only or primary purpose is procreation, then it would seem to be a badly designed mechanism indeed, considering how inefficient it is for that purpose.

There is yet another biological argument that suggests that the primary purpose of sex is not procreation. In our species, females do not experience estrus – that is to say, human women do not go into heat. Virtually every other species of mammal does, and in many of those species, the onset of estrus is marked by conspicuous physical changes that advertise the female’s sexual availability. For example, female chimpanzees‘ genitals become swollen and bright pink when they are ovulating, a sign that is obvious at a glance.

By contrast, ovulation in humans is not just not advertised, it is concealed: there are noexternal physical or behavioral signs that reliably indicate when a woman is capable of becoming pregnant. In addition, the length of the female menstrual cycle exhibits much more variation than cycles of estrus in other mammals, making accurate prediction difficult. (Ironically, although the rhythm method is unreliable for humans, it would work great for gorillas.) These facts, as Jared Diamond points out, ensure that most human sex acts will take place at the wrong time for fertilization. Again: if the religious right is correct and sex was designed by God primarily for procreation, why would God make it so difficult to use it for that purpose? Why would he design human beings so that we must have sex many times to stand a good chance of initiating a pregnancy?

These difficulties persist as long as one clings to the view that the only reason for sex is procreation. But if we discard that assumption, the matter comes into clear focus. An alternative explanation that accounts for the facts much better is that sex has two primary purposes: for procreation and also for pair bonding. And while pair bonding strengthens the family structure needed to raise healthy children, that is not its only purpose. In nature, it can also be used as a stress reliever, to strengthen group cohesion, as social currency, and simply for pleasure. Even homosexual sex exists in nature. Are animals violating “natural law� when they use sex for these purposes?

The concealed ovulation of females, and the constant receptivity of both genders, not just allows but encourages human beings to have sex more often than is strictly necessary for procreation. One might say that we are designed this way. If we abide by the religious right’s simplistic arguments about what is natural or what we are meant to do, we are not just guided but compelled to the conclusions drawn in this essay.

However, we, unlike other animals, are not rigidly bound by the dictates of evolution and instinct. We are not required to abide by what is “natural�. (If the religious right were consistent, they would also oppose eyeglasses and surgery for appendicitis – and priestly celibacy! – since those things are just as “unnatural� as condoms or birth control pills.) The purpose of sex is whatever we decide it is, and so long as we do not use it in ways that harm others or infringe on their equal right of self-determination, that decision is our right to freely make.

[Joab]

[Replying to post 97 by 99percentatheism]

You do notice that it says nothing about angels becoming men. You might imply that but it is not what the bible actually says.

What is the type of angel/human intercourse that results in offspring?

The angels were still a completely different species. Remember that's why god created humanity according to the story. Besides if angels can create humans what makes god's efforts so wonderful?