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."

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 251 by help3434]

If they believe Christianity is true, then they believe homosexuals are damned. Looks like a loose-loose to me.

Well, there are gay people who, like their straight counterparts, seek 'religion' for similar and, probably, personal reasons. Perhaps there are some here on this forum who could offer their initial reasons for choosing to 'go Christian' or some other religion. For those gay people who wish to involve themselves in Christianity, as is their entitlement, they should not be barred from Christian meeting places merely because of their innate sexuality. The Christian hero, Jesus, as He is portrayed in scripture, would not be unwelcoming to gay people. Nor should Christians who claim to emulate Jesus be unwelcoming to gay people. Moreover, Christians have no reason, other than mistranslated scriptures, to do so

.

First, it's a religion's right to accept or reject whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. My (white) family was rejected for membership in a (white) Baptist Church because I (the Father) wasn't a believer, as was their right.

I didn't say that it wasn't their right ...I said that, if of the Christian (Jesus) religion, they shouldn't bar people from their church meetings. It's most unchristian to bar anyone from a Christian meeting based on, in this particular case, one's sexual orientation. "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I." Jesus. Matthew 18:20. This text does not say that the two or three must be heterosexual.

Needless to say I didn't shed any tears, but my Christian wife had her eyes opened.

So, you appear to be in agreement that the church should not have rejected your family on account of your disbelief . . .?

Same for any private business, club or organization. The only equal rights anyone has is to equal treatment under the law, and in access to public/government goods and services.

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

I wouldn't be putting words in Jesus' mouth. He was a devout Jew whose attitudes towards homosexuals then is pretty much what Islam's is to them now. I can't say either way, just sayin'.

According to scripture, the only ones that Jesus EVER criticized, and even rejected from some future 'paradise', were the arrogant and the self righteous. Anyone ...ever come across any of these types in your local church or Christian Forum? I was basing my comment about Jesus and homosexuality on the story of the adulterous woman. I picture Jesus dealing in the same way with a homosexual who may have been brought to Him for condemnation. No doubt, He would say, "You who have never sinned, cast the first stone." My comment about Jesus was consistent with His character as portrayed in scripture.

I don't believe the reasons for Sodom and Gomorrah were mistranslated, though I have an open mind on the subject.

No need for any mystery here ...just read the story. You will find no evidence at all that S&G were destroyed because of rampant homosexuality. In fact, homosexuality is not mentioned at all in this (probable) allegory. I've made the challenge several times on this forum for anyone to produce any text from the S&G story (other than the alleged intended rape of the angels by the town folk*) that refer to homosexuality. All I've gotten thus far is the sound of crickets.

*Rape is 'gender neutral'.

But for the sake of argument, lets just say they were mistranslated, by who?

Well, your only familiarity with this story seems to be what you've heard from others. So, how can you offer any informed comment? Become acquainted with the story for yourself. If you find anything in the tale about homosexuality then, please, present it here. Since you won't find anything it will become quite clear to you that those who equate Sodom and Gomorrah with homosexuality have clearly misinterpreted this piece of scripture. It's really not rocket science.

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.

But y'all are going about this all the wrong way. Homos- don't make little ready-made followers like Heteros- do. Forget the marriage issue and focus on the money. Play your cards right and within a generation there'll be a gay Pope. Woops, I think my cynical slip is showing.

Yes, perhaps it is.

[KCKID]

Instead of committing adultery, they are just Puppy Fluffing. Or, Fluffy Puppy. How very acceptable is that. Who won't "affirm" Puppy Fluffing?

Here's the new fad: "Dude, are you cheating on your wife?"

"What? No, I am just Fluffy Puppy with some other woman."

"Ahhhhhhhh, how cute."

If we are to embrace a world that can simply redefine anything and everything for a new fad and political power, then nothing is truth.

Is the Gospel really bendable and even re-definable to the whim of any person, group, fad or political movement?

[...]

Really? Who is mistranslating "Christian marriage" and who isn't it? Etc., etc., etc..

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Many of those who claim to be Christians are in second (or third) marriages where a divorce for the reason of sexual immorality has not been sought or obtained. According to Jesus, those people are adulterers. If they remain in a sexual relationship with their new spouses, they are unrepentant adulterers. This looks to me like a double standard. The Christian Churches vociferously campaign to stop the influence, acceptance and infiltration of unrepentant sexual sinners if they are homosexual, but, for the most part, allow it to continue even within their midst when the sexual sin is adultery.

Absolutely. And yet, as you say, the double standards that are SO glaringly evident, are simply brushed aside by those with the loudest 'anti-gay' voices. Perhaps THE loudest 'anti-gay' voice, that of Shirley Phelps-Roper of the Westboro Baptist Church, does not deny that her son Sam, who was later adopted by present husband Brent Roper, was born out of wedlock and has not stated the identity of his biological father.

As mentioned a number of times, it's none of my business what one might do in their private life; however, I DO call out Christians for ignoring the 'biblical immorality' of some while highlighting the perceived 'biblical immorality' of others. I have no idea how they can do this without knowing that others will see the hypocrisy and double standards of this and call them out for it. If pressed, the only response from these folks seems to be a casual ...'Well, two wrongs don't make a right'.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 251 by help3434]

If they believe Christianity is true, then they believe homosexuals are damned. Looks like a loose-loose to me.

Well, there are gay people who, like their straight counterparts, seek 'religion' for similar and, probably, personal reasons. Perhaps there are some here on this forum who could offer their initial reasons for choosing to 'go Christian' or some other religion. For those gay people who wish to involve themselves in Christianity, as is their entitlement, they should not be barred from Christian meeting places merely because of their innate sexuality. The Christian hero, Jesus, as He is portrayed in scripture, would not be unwelcoming to gay people. Nor should Christians who claim to emulate Jesus be unwelcoming to gay people. Moreover, Christians have no reason, other than mistranslated scriptures, to do so

.

First, it's a religion's right to accept or reject whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. My (white) family was rejected for membership in a (white) Baptist Church because I (the Father) wasn't a believer, as was their right.

I didn't say that it wasn't their right ...I said that, if of the Christian (Jesus) religion, they shouldn't bar people from their church meetings. It's most unchristian to bar anyone from a Christian meeting based on, in this particular case, one's sexual orientation. "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I." Jesus. Matthew 18:20. This text does not say that the two or three must be heterosexual.

You're parsing words, you said it was their entitlement a distinction without a difference.

Needless to say I didn't shed any tears, but my Christian wife had her eyes opened.

So, you appear to be in agreement that the church should not have rejected your family on account of your disbelief . . .?

No. It was our right to apply, and their right to accept or reject. I don't really know what their motivation was. They turned down some contributors, but contributors which could have raised unwanted questions in their midst and cost them other contributors--to take the cynical view.

Same for any private business, club or organization. The only equal rights anyone has is to equal treatment under the law, and in access to public/government goods and services.

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

Like I implied, their right to refuse me goes hand in hand with their right to be hypocrites, on their own dime.

I wouldn't be putting words in Jesus' mouth. He was a devout Jew whose attitudes towards homosexuals then is pretty much what Islam's is to them now. I can't say either way, just sayin'.

According to scripture, the only ones that Jesus EVER criticized, and even rejected from some future 'paradise', were the arrogant and the self righteous. Anyone ...ever come across any of these types in your local church or Christian Forum? I was basing my comment about Jesus and homosexuality on the story of the adulterous woman. I picture Jesus dealing in the same way with a homosexual who may have been brought to Him for condemnation. No doubt, He would say, "You who have never sinned, cast the first stone." My comment about Jesus was consistent with His character as portrayed in scripture.

The subject isn't reported as coming up. But I say again, Jesus was a devout Jew. And remember what he told the harlot, "go your way and sin no more". Jesus, unlike Paul, emphasized repentance. A harlot can repent, can a homosexual repent?

I don't believe the reasons for Sodom and Gomorrah were mistranslated, though I have an open mind on the subject.

No need for any mystery here ...just read the story. You will find no evidence at all that S&G were destroyed because of rampant homosexuality. In fact, homosexuality is not mentioned at all in this (probable) allegory. I've made the challenge several times on this forum for anyone to produce any text from the S&G story (other than the alleged intended rape of the angels by the town folk*) that refer to homosexuality. All I've gotten thus far is the sound of crickets.

*Rape is 'gender neutral'.

They came seeking the "men" he took in. The whole thing is so screwed up anyway. Lot offered them his virgin daughters, the same two daughters by whom he later presumably had children. You're quibbling anyway, there are several other verses proscribing homosexuality, such as:

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

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 y'all are going about this all the wrong way. Homos- don't make little ready-made followers like Heteros- do. Forget the marriage issue and focus on the money. Play your cards right and within a generation there'll be a gay Pope. Woops, I think my cynical slip is showing.

Yes, perhaps it is.

So you'd shift gears? Hell I'd join a gay pride parade to see that...well, as long as I could wear a sign that said "Straight As Hell!"

[KCKID]

KCKID

My question is, why would gays ever want to be accepted into Christianity, or any religion?

Well, there are gay people who, like their straight counterparts, seek 'religion' for similar and, probably, personal reasons.

Doesn't it seem more for the normalization and celebration of homosexuality? When looking at this in a historical perspective, planting the gay pride flag in The Church seems the goal more than preaching the Gospel to the lost.

Dang! I was hoping that no one would figure that out. Of course that's the reason gay people seek 'Christianity' . . .

Perhaps there are some here on this forum who could offer their initial reasons for choosing to 'go Christian' or some other religion.

Reality. The Gospel and its connection with the rest of the New Testament seems a direct stand against the world and its ways of anything and everything goes.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with this 'anything and everything goes' mentality.

It seems that Jesus and the rest of the voices in the New Testament, are indicating that there is a change of relationship between God and man. It is a perspective that makes sense.

I don't know about one's relationship with the God of the OT. However, one's relationship with Jesus (a subjective concept anyway) is not reliant on one's gender preference.

For those gay people who wish to involve themselves in Christianity, as is their entitlement, they should not be barred from Christian meeting places merely because of their innate sexuality.

"Gay people?" A 21st century neologism shows the nature of some kind of agenda there.

Yeah, so you keep saying so it must be true . . .

There are sins, sinning and sinners and those that repent of sin, sinning and being a sinner.

It's not for you to play the judge and jury.

Anyone should be barred if the preach another Gospel.

Ridiculous. Gay people are not preaching another gospel, a different Gospel. However, you could be . . . And, those divorcees and remarrieds who sit in your church pews, sing hymns, listen to sermons, mouth invocations to a superior being, claim to love Jesus, rub shoulders with other church congregants at pot-luck luncheons, etc. are certainly violating "The Gospel According To 99percentatheism!"

Or at the very least, they should be respectful of Christian truth and if they can't abide by it, go invent another religion that they feel can justify their new paradigm.

Are heterosexuals being disrespectful of Christian truth (whatever that's supposed to mean) by virtue of their being heterosexuals? If not, then HOW are homosexuals being disrespectful of Christian truth by virtue of their being homosexuals? Do you realize that what you say makes no sense?

For example, there is no such thing as same gender marriage in the New Testament witness.

Well, times have changed! Should we also get rid of automobiles, computers, airplanes, newspapers, telephones, electricity, science, make-up, nose-jobs, plastic surgery, botox, condoms, birth control, etc. etc. because these things are also in violation of the 'New Testament witness' of 2000 years ago?

It's a silly argument, 99percent, and I wonder why you haven't yet realized this.

A "Christian marriage" is undeniably man and woman/husband and wife FROM any perspective based ON the New Testament witness.

*Newsflash* - Christians may still marry their gender opposites if they so wish. Gay marriage will in no way affect this!

But there are some people that refuse to want to believe that and there are those that want to be part of the historic Christian mission.

I always thought that the 'historic Christian mission' was simply to love your neighbor as yourself, nothing more, nothing less. Did I get that wrong?

The Christian hero, Jesus, as He is portrayed in scripture, would not be unwelcoming to gay people.

"Gay people?" There's that 21st century propaganda tactic being employed where it cannot fit into the preaching of repentance for sins.

Why should people need to offer an apology to God - or to you - for a sexual orientation they never asked for? That IS what 'homosexuality' is, 99perent, an innate sexual orientation. That, in and of itself, is 'morally neutral'.

Why not rename, redefine and relabel adultery too?

Why would adulterers need to rename 'their sin', 99percent? A huge percentage of Christians don't know that divorce and remarriage is verboten according to the Bible, indeed, according to Jesus! They don't know their Bible. They are taught their Bible by others. And, if they do know that divorce and remarriage is a sin, then they evidently ignore this. I have never heard of any Christian person who, upon realization that their remarriage is 'a sin', chose to separate from their partner and had the marriage annulled and remained forever celibate. Never!

Thousands of these 'adulterers' are already welcomed 'as is' into countless Christian Churches throughout the world. No one tells a divorced and remarried person that they are sinners. If this was made globally known Christianity would lose so many members that they would have to close down countless numbers of churches. I know this and, I would guess, so do you, 99percent. The mainstream Christian Church chooses to ignore the very words of Jesus when it comes to divorce and remarriage. This is blatant hypocrisy and double standards since they also choose to have a field day when it comes to homosexuality!

Fluffy Puppies. Fluffy Puppy People.

FPP.

Instead of committing adultery, they are just Puppy Fluffing. Or, Fluffy Puppy. How very acceptable is that. Who won't "affirm" Puppy Fluffing?

Here's the new fad: "Dude, are you cheating on your wife?"

"What? No, I am just Fluffy Puppy with some other woman."

"Ahhhhhhhh, how cute."

Um . . .well okay . . .

If we are to embrace a world that can simply redefine anything and everything for a new fad and political power, then nothing is truth.

Homosexuality (being gay) is not a new fad ...it's a reality and involves human beings. And THAT is the truth. Please don't slander these people with misguided and ancient beliefs.

Is the Gospel really bendable and even re-definable to the whim of any person, group, fad or political movement?

The Gospel: Love your neighbor as yourself. THAT encompasses all the Law and the Prophets.

Nor should Christians who claim to emulate Jesus be unwelcoming to gay people.

To what point? The inviting in of a different Gospel preached as such? Jesus was clear what to do with "people" that refused the Gospel. It was to be uninvolved with them. Not just unwelcoming.

Previously addressed.

Just one more thing . . .

. . .poppycock!

Jesus made it clear also about the wolf in sheep's clothing. The wheat and the weeds. A false Gospel and the real one. And the kinds of people and groups that would represent them.

Yes, Jesus did make it clear.

Be careful, 99percent.

Moreover, Christians have no reason, other than mistranslated scriptures, to do so.

Really? Who is mistranslating "Christian marriage" and who isn't it? Etc., etc., etc..

Gee, it's so frustrating when you go simple on me, 99percent. These things have been addressed by me many times. No need to keep covering the same ground.

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 251 by help3434]

If they believe Christianity is true, then they believe homosexuals are damned. Looks like a loose-loose to me.

Well, there are gay people who, like their straight counterparts, seek 'religion' for similar and, probably, personal reasons. Perhaps there are some here on this forum who could offer their initial reasons for choosing to 'go Christian' or some other religion. For those gay people who wish to involve themselves in Christianity, as is their entitlement, they should not be barred from Christian meeting places merely because of their innate sexuality. The Christian hero, Jesus, as He is portrayed in scripture, would not be unwelcoming to gay people. Nor should Christians who claim to emulate Jesus be unwelcoming to gay people. Moreover, Christians have no reason, other than mistranslated scriptures, to do so

.

First, it's a religion's right to accept or reject whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. My (white) family was rejected for membership in a (white) Baptist Church because I (the Father) wasn't a believer, as was their right.

I didn't say that it wasn't their right ...I said that, if of the Christian (Jesus) religion, they shouldn't bar people from their church meetings. It's most unchristian to bar anyone from a Christian meeting based on, in this particular case, one's sexual orientation. "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I." Jesus. Matthew 18:20. This text does not say that the two or three must be heterosexual.

You're parsing words, you said it was their entitlement a distinction without a difference.

You're right.

Needless to say I didn't shed any tears, but my Christian wife had her eyes opened.

So, you appear to be in agreement that the church should not have rejected your family on account of your disbelief . . .?

No. It was our right to apply, and their right to accept or reject. I don't really know what their motivation was. They turned down some contributors, but contributors which could have raised unwanted questions in their midst and cost them other contributors--to take the cynical view.

Okay.

Same for any private business, club or organization. The only equal rights anyone has is to equal treatment under the law, and in access to public/government goods and services.

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

Like I implied, their right to refuse me goes hand in hand with their right to be hypocrites, on their own dime.

Okay again.

I wouldn't be putting words in Jesus' mouth. He was a devout Jew whose attitudes towards homosexuals then is pretty much what Islam's is to them now. I can't say either way, just sayin'.

According to scripture, the only ones that Jesus EVER criticized, and even rejected from some future 'paradise', were the arrogant and the self righteous. Anyone ...ever come across any of these types in your local church or Christian Forum? I was basing my comment about Jesus and homosexuality on the story of the adulterous woman. I picture Jesus dealing in the same way with a homosexual who may have been brought to Him for condemnation. No doubt, He would say, "You who have never sinned, cast the first stone." My comment about Jesus was consistent with His character as portrayed in scripture.

The subject isn't reported as coming up. But I say again, Jesus was a devout Jew. And remember what he told the harlot, "go your way and sin no more". Jesus, unlike Paul, emphasized repentance. A harlot can repent, can a homosexual repent?

Gee, you're right again. The first part of my response wasn't reported as coming up. I just wanted to give you more for your buck!

Jesus knew that He was talking to a human being when he told the harlot not to sin any more. Human beings inherently sin, always have and always will. Because Jesus knew this (and, according to scripture, He came to be the substitute for our sins) 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?

I don't believe the reasons for Sodom and Gomorrah were mistranslated, though I have an open mind on the subject.

No need for any mystery here ...just read the story. You will find no evidence at all that S&G were destroyed because of rampant homosexuality. In fact, homosexuality is not mentioned at all in this (probable) allegory. I've made the challenge several times on this forum for anyone to produce any text from the S&G story (other than the alleged intended rape of the angels by the town folk*) that refer to homosexuality. All I've gotten thus far is the sound of crickets.

*Rape is 'gender neutral'.

They came seeking the "men" he took in.

Yeah . . .so ...?

The whole thing is so screwed up anyway. Lot offered them his virgin daughters, the same two daughters by whom he later presumably had children.

Of course the whole thing is screwed up. How many people do you know that have been turned into a pillar of salt for being disobedient? How many people do you know that have been turned into a pillar of salt PERIOD? But, many Christians buy this stuff without question even though it defies logic . . .

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.

Below is a short (8:27) video presentation that pretty much takes care of the text you mentioned.

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.

But y'all are going about this all the wrong way. Homos- don't make little ready-made followers like Heteros- do. Forget the marriage issue and focus on the money. Play your cards right and within a generation there'll be a gay Pope. Woops, I think my cynical slip is showing.

Yes, perhaps it is.

So you'd shift gears? Hell I'd join a gay pride parade to see that...well, as long as I could wear a sign that said "Straight As Hell!"

Well, if you feel such a need to flaunt your heterosexuality to the world it doesn't matter to me. Live and let live, I say.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 262 by KCKID]

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.

Utterly ignored.

Marriage written, described and defined and affirmed in the New Testament is man and woman/husband and wife. Even, by Jesus.

Those scriptures have been ignored many times KCKID.

What is also ignored is propaganda and the vehicle for its effectiveness: redefining truth. And almost nothing is more effective a tactic for accomplishing "change" than neologism. As in "love" meaning "anything goes." Actually, I can't imagine how anyone thinks that "anything goes" is Christian love:

Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

The Narrow and Wide Gates

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

True and False Prophets

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

True and False Disciples

Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!

The Wise and Foolish Builders

Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.

When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

- Matthew 7

Secular law is not the Gospel.

[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.

(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. Repentance (and restitution if possible) is the only way one can achieve salvation. Both Jesus and JohnTB cried our for repentance. Jesus has been turning over in his grave at all the pagan modifications Paul proclaimed in his name.

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.

They came seeking the "men" he took in.

Yeah . . .so ...?

As you said, rape is gender neutral.

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.

So you'd shift gears? Hell I'd join a gay pride parade to see that...well, as long as I could wear a sign that said "Straight As Hell!"

Well, if you feel such a need to flaunt your heterosexuality to the world it doesn't matter to me. Live and let live, I say.

I wouldn't be flaunting it, just declaring it. People assume a man is straight until he comes out of the closet. In such a parade, I'd be in the straight closet by default, without a sign. Wouldn't my standing with you be enough? You don't like people thinking your straight when your not, it's a two way street we all have to live with, and should accept, especially after the parade is over.

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 262 by KCKID]

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.

Utterly ignored.

Of course. Putting one's fingers in their ears and singing "la la la la la" loudly is what one does when they don't want to hear.

Anyway, I wasn't talking to you for a change.

Marriage written, described and defined and affirmed in the New Testament is man and woman/husband and wife. Even, by Jesus.

Right now we're not talking about marriage whether gay or straight. This thread is titled: Will gays EVER be accepted by mainstream Christianity?

Those scriptures have been ignored many times KCKID.

I don't want them to be ignored. I want to debate them. You know this. One often - even generally - chooses to ignore what one cannot face up to. Debate those 'clobber passages' with me, 99percent ...this is the umpteenth time that I've asked you to do so. Prove to me/us how these scriptures support your stance on the gay issue. Surely, you've nothing to lose ...?

What is also ignored is propaganda and the vehicle for its effectiveness: redefining truth. And almost nothing is more effective a tactic for accomplishing "change" than neologism. As in "love" meaning "anything goes." Actually, I can't imagine how anyone thinks that "anything goes" is Christian love:

Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

The Narrow and Wide Gates

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

True and False Prophets

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

True and False Disciples

Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!

The Wise and Foolish Builders

Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.

When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

- Matthew 7

Secular law is not the Gospel.

Once again, 99percent, a nice sermon but nothing to do with the topic. And, I'm not in Church, unfortunately. There are just a handful of scriptures that are used to condemn homosexuality by Christians. How about we analyze them one by one? We start off on a level playing field. Neither one of us is right or wrong. How much fairer can I be?

[KCKID]

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

Well, Jesus' endorsement is a matter of opinion/pure faith.

Yes, that is true.

But I'm sure Paul would approve.

Ah, not a 'Paul' fan, I take it. You're not alone.

(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. Repentance (and restitution if possible) is the only way one can achieve salvation. Both Jesus and JohnTB cried our for repentance. Jesus has been turning over in his grave at all the pagan modifications Paul proclaimed in his name.

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.

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.

But they have been and possibly still are somewhere in the world. Both were considered to be 'grave sin' in the Torah punishable by death. It's my understanding, however, that there is no record of anyone actually being stoned to death for adultery, homosexuality, profaning the Sabbath, being disobedient to one''s parents, etc. One might wonder why "God" worded these commands in such a way to begin with.

They came seeking the "men" he took in.

Yeah . . .so ...?

As you said, rape is gender neutral.

Okay.

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.

The texts that you suggest condemn homosexuality are certainly not plain. They are most ambiguous, particularly so since the word 'homosexuality' is never used, NOR the Hebrew or Greek equivalent. However, I don't want to go into these scriptures right now.

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'm not sure which side of the fence you're on regarding this topic.

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.

There are other quotes that appear to be anti-heterosexual. It's all to do with context and exegesis.

So you'd shift gears? Hell I'd join a gay pride parade to see that...well, as long as I could wear a sign that said "Straight As Hell!"

Well, if you feel such a need to flaunt your heterosexuality to the world it doesn't matter to me. Live and let live, I say.

I wouldn't be flaunting it, just declaring it. People assume a man is straight until he comes out of the closet. In such a parade, I'd be in the straight closet by default, without a sign. Wouldn't my standing with you be enough?

Not me. I've no desire to be in such a parade to begin with. As to whether someone is gay or straight, why is it necessary for one to declare their sexuality to anyone anyway? What difference does it really make? ...other than provoking the 'righteous ones' coming down on one for announcing the former, of course.

You don't like people thinking your straight when your not, it's a two way street we all have to live with, and should accept, especially after the parade is over.

Why is it assumed that someone is gay whenever they show favor to gay people?

[Goat]

[Replying to post 262 by KCKID]

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.

Utterly ignored.

Marriage written, described and defined and affirmed in the New Testament is man and woman/husband and wife. Even, by Jesus.

Let's see those passages in CONTEXT. Does any of them say 'Between one man and one woman alone', and that's it?

Somehow, I suspect bias is being used for interpretation.