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."

[99percentatheism]

KCKID

Please read my other posts above.

It's now been several days since my previous and specific response to your post, 99percent. I trust by now you've had time to see the merits of my argument.

By now I've listened to Dr. Michael Brown debate Matthew Vines on the Up For Debate program last Saturday which proved that Vines' (and your) positions are based on nothing but a new secular-religious movement. Which of course you and he are entitled to invent. Vines even admitted that the Leviticus scriptures IS denouncing male on male sexual behavior and is not just about idolatry. As Brown proved.

The Bible and its across-the-board condemnation of homosexuality, a position as held by most Christians, is a very weak one once the scriptures are exegetically understood.

Which you can write to convince yourself all day long. That's your right. But the fact is that there is no scriptures anywhere that supports the homosexual (LGBT) position or demands. None.

Would you now be willing to concede to the facts presented and finish this up with a friendly cyber-handshake?

I have offered you a cyber-handshake over and over again that you are free to invent any quasi-Bible based religion your heart desires. You are even entitled to labeling your movement "Christian" if that is what you desire. And here at www.debatingchristianity.com you have the unchallengeable right to claim you are a Christian too. But like Vines, you are entitled to your opinion, but your facts get challenged by facts.

But, not only do I stand my ground theologically with scripture support - as did Jesus - but I do so in all reality outside of the internet experience as well. And until you can produce something louder than silence to show support and encouragement to engaging in homosexuality and to redefining marriage in contradiction to what God/Jesus defined it as, then my cyber (or real)-handshake will be a quick one given out appropriately for anyone that promotes what you do and how and why you do it. And then I move on as Jesus encourages me to do.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 316 by 99percentatheism]

When a "Lesbian wife" can make another "Lesbian wife" pregnant, then your analogy will make some kind of sense.

It's easy. It's called science - more aptly, medicine.
You see, two women go to the doctor and either get fertilized with one of their own eggs or us someone elses egg. Once this is done, they pay $ for the service.

You are aware that marriage is not required for reproduction, no?

Which of course via evolution or Christian morality is impossible.

According to evolution, your computer is impossible. But your god seems to have given us the ability to bypass evolution in this regard. And when it comes to your god, not everyone cares what it thinks.

...the Bible has already been so marginalized as to be nothing more than a paperweight.

Which is one of the best uses of the bible I must say. But, becuase mine were on paper, I didn't want the trees to be used in vain so I had all mine recycled. It was the right thing to do

...if you can produce clear and unambiguous scriptures...

First, your 'scripture' has been manipulated physically and mentally for centuries. Finding one that's clear and unambiguous falls only to those who wish to find it. You see, these people could (if they're good enough) take a verse or two and make it say anything they want it to say. That's the good thing about the bible - it's malleable.
Second, not everyone cares what the bibles seems to say, much less agree with it in all/many/some/few instances.
What does this mean to you?
Probably not much, as you will continue to live your life as you see fit (which you should - it's your life after all). However, there is not authority in the bible so that it must be forced onto others.
Meaning, for clairification: "I don't much care what your bible says to you."

But so far, all we have is affirming silence for the neolgism of gay theology.

I don't know of any gay theology...unless you're referring to the churches that (gasp) allow gay members?

Not the same thing as we have for male humans and female humans getting "married" the way the Jesus in the Bible details it.

That same claim was used when it came to inter-racial marriages. Based upon your negative stance on anything not-heterosexual, I would assume you want to be fair and thus, to you, inter-racial marriages are against god too, yes?
I mean, after all, your bible was used to spout that as well.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 317 by 99percentatheism]

Reality is a hard pill to swallow only when treating the wrong disease.

What disease are you referring to, marriage?

A "divorce" breaks up a "marriage."

I wonder, if a person marries another, without any reference to god in the vows &/or location &/or person performing the service, is god part of that marriage?
If so, this means god is forcing itself into something they participants may not want and thus, voiding their free will. And that's not something your god wants, is it? Doesn't god want us all to make out own choices?

. . . a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.

Are we to assume, because you and your forebearers have, that this means legal marriage? Or marriage at all simply because it's what you want it to mean?

Not according to the people that wrote the scriptures.

It's unfortunate for some of you that this is changing, and has changed in many different sects of your own religion.
And a house divide can't stand.
So will believers fall with this house, or will they bend to the will of society, like christianity has done for centuries?
I (unfortunately) don't see it going away any time soon so my bet is that it will (continue) to bend - never breaking - but bend none-the-less.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 318 by 99percentatheism]

But the fact is that there is no scriptures anywhere that supports the homosexual (LGBT) position or demands.

Curious: does there have to be a scripture for something in order for it to be 'supported'? And what does 'support' mean here?
Your quote my indeed be to answer a specific point made previously, but your comment caused my question, in a general means.

[KCKID]

KCKID

Please read my other posts above.

It's now been several days since my previous and specific response to your post, 99percent. I trust by now you've had time to see the merits of my argument.

By now I've listened to Dr. Michael Brown debate Matthew Vines on the Up For Debate program last Saturday which proved that Vines' (and your) positions are based on nothing but a new secular-religious movement. Which of course you and he are entitled to invent.

Well, I decided to seek out that interview for myself on YouTube. Here it is:



From the outset the host, Julie Roys, plants her stake when she states that the scriptures have been 'reinterpreted'. She doesn't say this but one would assume that she means that changes have been made to scripture to accommodate 'liberal Christian theology'. This apparent 'tampering with scripture', as she states, immediately gives out a sense of foreboding to her audience that 'something evil' has occurred, even if she didn't mean it that way. And, one might reasonably assume that her audience are Christians and likely unanimous in their support for whatever Dr. Brown might have to say. Otherwise, other than Julie Roys' admission that the views of Dr. Michael Brown are pretty much in line with her own on this topic, as well as that of the organization that funds the radio station, she moderates quite well. She also knows from the outset, of course, that Matthew Vines will not have too many supporters that are listening in.

From the very beginning Dr. Michael Brown comes across as patronizing (I weep for those such as yourself, Matthew), smug and arrogant ("I" speak with the authority of God and you don't, Matthew!) and quite a proponent of 'the red herring' ("There are over 31,000 verses in the Bible and not a single one of them has a positive thing to say about homosexual relationships.")

Vines even admitted that the Leviticus scriptures IS denouncing male on male sexual behavior and is not just about idolatry.

True. However, I and a number of Jewish scholars, would disagree. Refer to the video I presented in post 276. This video explains Leviticus 20:13 very well and I would suggest that people watch it prior to debating this topic. That includes you, 99percent. You evidently HAVEN'T watched it.

As Brown proved.

Brown proved nothing. He simply regurgitated the same, tired old rhetoric that most of us are used to. He never attempted to give a critical account of the Leviticus texts. He just took it - as most Christians do while ignoring the rest of Leviticus - to read 'as is'. Tell me, how does one earn a doctorate in theology without having critically examined scripture?

The Bible and its across-the-board condemnation of homosexuality, a position as held by most Christians, is a very weak one once the scriptures are exegetically understood.

Which you can write to convince yourself all day long. That's your right. But the fact is that there is no scriptures anywhere that supports the homosexual (LGBT) position or demands. None.

I've told you before, 99percent, that I'm not interested in whether or not the Bible 'supports' (what does that even mean?) homosexuality. The Bible, by its silence on MANY things, doesn't 'support' MANY things. I'm only interested in debating those scriptures that Christians use to vilify gay people. And, I feel that I've done my part. I don't want to make you look foolish, 99percent, but you haven't been able to counter my argument stating that there are NO scriptures that condemn homosexuality as we today use that term. Your continually saying, "Show me one scripture that supports homosexuality and/or gay marriage" just doesn't cut it.

Would you now be willing to concede to the facts presented and finish this up with a friendly cyber-handshake?

I have offered you a cyber-handshake over and over again that you are free to invent any quasi-Bible based religion your heart desires. You are even entitled to labeling your movement "Christian" if that is what you desire. And here at www.debatingchristianity.com you have the unchallengeable right to claim you are a Christian too. But like Vines, you are entitled to your opinion, but your facts get challenged by facts.

Neither you or Dr. Michael Brown have challenged anyone with facts ...just the same tired old anti-gay rhetoric. While Matthew Vines did the best that he could given the time limitation no one can possibility delve effectively into the Bible 'clobber' passages and critically examine them in just 45 minutes.

But, not only do I stand my ground theologically with scripture support - as did Jesus -

Interjection! Nowhere did Jesus ever state that gay people are not to be accepted into 'His fold'. Come to think of it, Jesus never said ANYTHING about homosexuality ...!

but I do so in all reality outside of the internet experience as well.

I must confess that it does concern me somewhat that those with their 'anti-gay' itching ears have someone like you to spout (as I've said several times previously) the same tired, old anti-gay rhetoric at them.

And until you can produce something louder than silence to show support and encouragement to engaging in homosexuality and to redefining marriage in contradiction to what God/Jesus defined it as, then my cyber (or real)-handshake will be a quick one given out appropriately for anyone that promotes what you do and how and why you do it. And then I move on as Jesus encourages me to do.

I've hardly been silent on this issue, 99percent. What I've attempted to do is to get people (Christians) to at least QUESTION those scriptures that have been used to vilify gay people. I don't know if the 're'interpretations of the 'clobber' texts are accurate. "I" believe that they are with all my heart but I'm open to someone proving them wrong with actual 'not a doubt in the world' facts. Thus far, that hasn't happened.

[99percentatheism]

connermt
[Replying to post 316 by 99percentatheism]

When a "Lesbian wife" can make another "Lesbian wife" pregnant, then your analogy will make some kind of sense.

It's easy. It's called science - more aptly, medicine.

It does not change reality. It only circumvents it.

You see, two women go to the doctor and either get fertilized with one of their own eggs or us someone elses egg. Once this is done, they pay $ for the service.

Scientific adultery you mean? "Cuz there is no such thing as sperm coming from a female human being. Not even in "gender identity" campaigns.

You are aware that marriage is not required for reproduction, no?

I have proven that beyond the shadow of a doubt by following the Biblical description of marriage. You do realize that there is no such thing as same gender "marriage" in the Bible? Now Pagans and non and anti Christians can invent any kind of "marriage" that makes them make it through their time on this planet. But the reality of what and whom a marriage is as defined and described in the Bible, there is no doubt that it is man and woman/husband and wife.

Which of course via evolution or Christian morality is impossible.

According to evolution, your computer is impossible. But your god seems to have given us the ability to bypass evolution in this regard. And when it comes to your god, not everyone cares what it thinks.

...the Bible has already been so marginalized as to be nothing more than a paperweight.

Which is one of the best uses of the bible I must say. But, becuase mine were on paper, I didn't want the trees to be used in vain so I had all mine recycled. It was the right thing to do

...if you can produce clear and unambiguous scriptures...

First, your 'scripture' has been manipulated physically and mentally for centuries.

Finding one that's clear and unambiguous falls only to those who wish to find it. You see, these people could (if they're good enough) take a verse or two and make it say anything they want it to say. That's the good thing about the bible - it's malleable.

Then try it. Find same gender marriage clearly and unambiguously detailed in the Bible and let's see if your hypothesis holds up?

Second, not everyone cares what the bibles seems to say, much less agree with it in all/many/some/few instances.

That's called "Throwing in the towel." And I encourage you to do so with all of the "human rights" that you have to choose another path than that of a Christian life. There is no such thing as same gender marriage anywhere in the Bible and your actions here show that. You are free to live your life based on whatever you want to.

What does this mean to you?

I have left the "anything goes" worldview years ago. I am not "gay affirming" on anything but the right of a human being to live the consequences of their choices. Just exactly as that position is detailed for a Christian to do. If there are "others" out there that want to live an "other worldly" life, I have never once tried to demand they stop. UNLESS that "anything goes" worldview is portrayed as being supported by Christian theology.

Probably not much, as you will continue to live your life as you see fit (which you should - it's your life after all). However, there is not authority in the bible so that it must be forced onto others.

Per Jesus. Good that you recognize that. That is exactly the position I hold.

Meaning, for clairification: "I don't much care what your bible says to you."

Gee ya think?

But so far, all we have is affirming silence for the neolgism of gay theology.

I don't know of any gay theology...unless you're referring to the churches that (gasp) allow gay members?

Wheat and weeds. Both Jesus and Jude make it clear that this would be the case.

Not the same thing as we have for male humans and female humans getting "married" the way the Jesus in the Bible details it.

That same claim was used when it came to inter-racial marriages. Based upon your negative stance on anything not-heterosexual, I would assume you want to be fair and thus, to you, inter-racial marriages are against god too, yes?

You seriously can write that kind of stuff? Man, you are not comparing apples to oranges but you are comparing apples to apples and demanding that one of the apples is a grizzly bear. Last time I looked, a man was a man and a woman was a woman no matter what the 18th and 19th (and 20th) century African Slave Trade based racism said about it. But that's just me using history, science and theology accurately.

But hey, when have facts gotten in the way of well seasoned propaganda tactics huh?

I mean, after all, your bible was used to spout that as well.

Where?

By using your comparison, it would be racism and gay pride activism that contradicts what the Bible says. I'd rather urge we stick with the truth.

[99percentatheism]

connermt
[Replying to post 318 by 99percentatheism]

But the fact is that there is no scriptures anywhere that supports the homosexual (LGBT) position or demands.

Curious: does there have to be a scripture for something in order for it to be 'supported'? And what does 'support' mean here?

Jesus and the writers of the New Testament base their entire reality on the scriptures, choices and actions. In the case of Jesus it is the Tanakh that those scriptures are called. It is comprised of The Torah, The Writings, and The Prophets. What is called "The Old Testament" today. There are also some other "extra biblical" writings that you see Jude using. But none are going to be of much help to the gay agenda.

Your quote my indeed be to answer a specific point made previously, but your comment caused my question, in a general means.

I just had a long conversation with a radio station executive the day before yesterday. She said she didn't respect "organized religion" anymore. So I asked her: So, you trust DIS-organized religion?

She wasn't prepared to answer that.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 322 by KCKID]

KCKID

KCKID

Please read my other posts above.

It's now been several days since my previous and specific response to your post, 99percent. I trust by now you've had time to see the merits of my argument.

By now I've listened to Dr. Michael Brown debate Matthew Vines on the Up For Debate program last Saturday which proved that Vines' (and your) positions are based on nothing but a new secular-religious movement. Which of course you and he are entitled to invent.

Well, I decided to seek out that interview for myself on YouTube. Here it is:



From the outset the host, Julie Roys, plants her stake when she states that the scriptures have been 'reinterpreted'. She doesn't say this but one would assume that she means that changes have been made to scripture to accommodate 'liberal Christian theology'. This apparent 'tampering with scripture', as she states, immediately gives out a sense of foreboding to her audience that 'something evil' has occurred, even if she didn't mean it that way. And, one might reasonably assume that her audience are Christians and likely unanimous in their support for whatever Dr. Brown might have to say. Otherwise, other than Julie Roys' admission that the views of Dr. Michael Brown are pretty much in line with her own on this topic, as well as that of the organization that funds the radio station, she moderates quite well. She also knows from the outset, of course, that Matthew Vines will not have too many supporters that are listening in.

That's called being honest. Ms. Roys is on Moody Bible radio. Moody Bible Institute is in Chicago and is "openly" Evangelical and orthodox in theology. And its amazing that it can exist in Chicago at all. Chicago is basically the real birthplace of American gay liberation. Look up the Mattachine Society. And Moody is located on the North Side of Chicago precariously close to "Boys Town" and a the large Gay Community area of that city.

Vines is appealing to these Bible-based Christians to change their beliefs and worldview to be supportive of homosexuality and homosexuals based on his personal feelings. Although he does so with the standard "Gay Christian 101' mantra, his theology is founded on personal opinion and little else.

From the very beginning Dr. Michael Brown comes across as patronizing (I weep for those such as yourself, Matthew), smug and arrogant ("I" speak with the authority of God and you don't, Matthew!) and quite a proponent of 'the red herring' ("There are over 31,000 verses in the Bible and not a single one of them has a positive thing to say about homosexual relationships.")

Brown was simply being honest. It's odd that that is now called arrogance. And I couldn't agree with you more that honesty and truth is a red herring in today's world.

Vines even admitted that the Leviticus scriptures IS denouncing male on male sexual behavior and is not just about idolatry.

True. However, I and a number of Jewish scholars, would disagree. Refer to the video I presented in post 276. This video explains Leviticus 20:13 very well and I would suggest that people watch it prior to debating this topic. That includes you, 99percent. You evidently HAVEN'T watched it.

"Scholar?" That is a wide open and very loose term these days. One is said to be a "Christian scholar" and hold that the corpse of Jesus was more than likely eaten by dogs after he was thrown down from the Cross. (http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-crossan-vs-jesus.htm)

As Brown proved.

Brown proved nothing. He simply regurgitated the same, tired old rhetoric that most of us are used to. He never attempted to give a critical account of the Leviticus texts. He just took it - as most Christians do while ignoring the rest of Leviticus - to read 'as is'. Tell me, how does one earn a doctorate in theology without having critically examined scripture?

Brown presented the scriptures YOU used in context. As you even admit Vines' agreed with Brown's assessment that gay sex is wrong and NOT ONLY in idolatrous ways.

The Bible and its across-the-board condemnation of homosexuality, a position as held by most Christians, is a very weak one once the scriptures are exegetically understood.

Which you can write to convince yourself all day long. That's your right. But the fact is that there is no scriptures anywhere that supports the homosexual (LGBT) position or demands. None.

I've told you before, 99percent, that I'm not interested in whether or not the Bible 'supports' (what does that even mean?) homosexuality. The Bible, by its silence on MANY things, doesn't 'support' MANY things. I'm only interested in debating those scriptures that Christians use to vilify gay people.

That you use the propaganda tacitc "use to vilify gay people," casts serious doubts on all of your premise and agenda. There were no "gay people" until the 20th century. The very word "gay" is a neologism used to make homosexuality seem nicer. More "palatable" so to speak.

And, I feel that I've done my part. I don't want to make you look foolish, 99percent, but you haven't been able to counter my argument stating that there are NO scriptures that condemn homosexuality as we today use that term.

You build a Strawman and demand I destroy it? Your entire position is based on a new paradigm that does not, nor ever has, existed in Christian reality. How can anything I do or say or write have an affect on a dream of yours or anyone else?

Your continually saying, "Show me one scripture that supports homosexuality and/or gay marriage" just doesn't cut it.

Anatomy and sexuality has not changed at all from "Biblical times" until we see some new evolution change that. Onanism is still accurate biology, sexuality and reality. Not even In Vitro fertilization changes that.

Would you now be willing to concede to the facts presented and finish this up with a friendly cyber-handshake?

I have offered you a cyber-handshake over and over again that you are free to invent any quasi-Bible based religion your heart desires. You are even entitled to labeling your movement "Christian" if that is what you desire. And here at www.debatingchristianity.com you have the unchallengeable right to claim you are a Christian too. But like Vines, you are entitled to your opinion, but your facts get challenged by facts.

Neither you or Dr. Michael Brown have challenged anyone with facts ...just the same tired old anti-gay rhetoric. While Matthew Vines did the best that he could given the time limitation no one can possibility delve effectively into the Bible 'clobber' passages and critically examine them in just 45 minutes.

And what did he prove? That his feeeeeelllllliiiiinnnnngggsss can over power the truth of scriptures?

That is 100% Anything Goes theology and morality KCKID. And anything does not go in Biblical truth.

But, not only do I stand my ground theologically with scripture support - as did Jesus -

Interjection! Nowhere did Jesus ever state that gay people are not to be accepted into 'His fold'. Come to think of it, Jesus never said ANYTHING about homosexuality ...!

He never said a word about homosexuals OR homosexuality. And yet, He detailed and RE-affirmed that marriage was man and woman/husband and wife. In fact, there is not one "affirming" word to anything gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, trans-sexual or even "questioning youth" in the Bible for the gay agenda and gay pride. But, it is clear that all of those identities are celebrated in the world and in its ways.

But Jesus DID say a word about this in the 13th Chapter of Matthew's Gospel. And it's interesting that Jude preaches the same message.

but I do so in all reality outside of the internet experience as well.

I must confess that it does concern me somewhat that those with their 'anti-gay' itching ears have someone like you to spout (as I've said several times previously) the same tired, old anti-gay rhetoric at them.

Nice try with subterfuge and spin tactics. But the itching ears advice is from Paul to a new Pastor going out to a very "gay affirming" land in Crete. Where Timothy would have met many people like Matthew Vines. And of course Jude highlights them in his area as well. More "clobber passages" adding up to contend for the faith against the new teachers of gay pride "in the Church."

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.

Unless you think that marriage is a myth that Jesus taught, it is clear who and what possess the itching ears that want to hear a new message to satisfy their desires . . . and from whom. Gay pride is a very new subject taught by new teachers to a new crowd.

And until you can produce something louder than silence to show support and encouragement to engaging in homosexuality and to redefining marriage in contradiction to what God/Jesus defined it as, then my cyber (or real)-handshake will be a quick one given out appropriately for anyone that promotes what you do and how and why you do it. And then I move on as Jesus encourages me to do.

I've hardly been silent on this issue, 99percent. What I've attempted to do is to get people (Christians) to at least QUESTION those scriptures that have been used to vilify gay people. I don't know if the 're'interpretations of the 'clobber' texts are accurate. "I" believe that they are with all my heart but I'm open to someone proving them wrong with actual 'not a doubt in the world' facts. Thus far, that hasn't happened.

You given "your whole heart" to this but somehow will change it? That doesn't sound logical.

"Test all things, and hold fast to that which is truth."

Your questions have been tested and shown to be wanting by far more people than just Dr. Brown.

While you have the right to choose this path, what you are contending for is a new religious paradigm based on new teachings from new teachers directed to those that want to hear this altogether different and foreign theology and morality. Which again, you have the right to do so.

But for those that follow the faith delivered only once to the saints, "The Mainstream Church," we have the right to choose the way, the truth, and the life and the narrow path that not only finds it, but keeps us on it when many things of this world can turn us away from it.

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 322 by KCKID]

KCKID

KCKID

Please read my other posts above.

It's now been several days since my previous and specific response to your post, 99percent. I trust by now you've had time to see the merits of my argument.

By now I've listened to Dr. Michael Brown debate Matthew Vines on the Up For Debate program last Saturday which proved that Vines' (and your) positions are based on nothing but a new secular-religious movement. Which of course you and he are entitled to invent.

Well, I decided to seek out that interview for myself on YouTube. Here it is:



From the outset the host, Julie Roys, plants her stake when she states that the scriptures have been 'reinterpreted'. She doesn't say this but one would assume that she means that changes have been made to scripture to accommodate 'liberal Christian theology'. This apparent 'tampering with scripture', as she states, immediately gives out a sense of foreboding to her audience that 'something evil' has occurred, even if she didn't mean it that way. And, one might reasonably assume that her audience are Christians and likely unanimous in their support for whatever Dr. Brown might have to say. Otherwise, other than Julie Roys' admission that the views of Dr. Michael Brown are pretty much in line with her own on this topic, as well as that of the organization that funds the radio station, she moderates quite well. She also knows from the outset, of course, that Matthew Vines will not have too many supporters that are listening in.

That's called being honest.

I acknowledged that. I also said that, from the outset, Ms Roy implanted into the minds of her listeners - intentionally or not - the idea that the scriptures had been interfered with, i.e. RE-interpreted, and made to say something not originally intended by the authors. This suggests, even on a subliminal level, that there is some evil afoot and that 'the truth' has been turned into a lie. The 'truth' is that much of the Bible is interpreted the way people wish to interpret it anyway. I think most of us know this. So, especially with regard to this particular topic, there are no interpretive absolutes. And this has been my point all along.

Ms. Roys is on Moody Bible radio. Moody Bible Institute is in Chicago and is "openly" Evangelical and orthodox in theology. And its amazing that it can exist in Chicago at all. Chicago is basically the real birthplace of American gay liberation. Look up the Mattachine Society. And Moody is located on the North Side of Chicago precariously close to "Boys Town" and a the large Gay Community area of that city.

Alright.

Vines is appealing to these Bible-based Christians to change their beliefs and worldview to be supportive of homosexuality and homosexuals based on his personal feelings.

Probably most "Bible-based Christians" have beliefs and worldviews that have been implanted into their minds by the leaders of their specific denominations. This is why the vast majority of them have never heard of temple prostitution and pagan idolatry and its associated practices. Therefore, they never make the connection through ignorance of the signs, the times, the culture and the religious taboos that are spoken of in scripture. For instance, most Christians can quote 'one liners' such as the 'man lying' text/s of Leviticus by rote; however, they would have little to no idea at all what those scriptures are actually referencing. When they are given what could well be the actual meanings to those texts they refuse to believe. Why? Because human beings are loathe to change, especially when it comes to belief in something. As the old expression goes, old habits die hard.

Christians, as you claim for Vines, use the Bible based on their own feelings. This is VERY much the case in regard to the subject of homosexuality. It's also a learned belief/feeling placed there by the Church leaders. The same would not be true, however, if the Church leaders came out in force against divorce and remarriage. It's too late now anyway. You see, religion is very much a case of pick and choose dependent on one's own personal feelings. Homosexuality for many has a cultural "ewwww" factor connected to it. Divorce and remarriage does not, even though the scriptures (remember them?) is unambiguously clear on it's condemnation of this.

Although he does so with the standard "Gay Christian 101' mantra, his theology is founded on personal opinion and little else.

Actually, I'm not here to support or defend Matthew Vines, whatever his personal opinions might be. I'm here to debate scripture on this particular topic. So far, however, there has been no debate on the scriptures in question. There have been, however, lots of red herrings thrown into the mix.

From the very beginning Dr. Michael Brown comes across as patronizing (I weep for those such as yourself, Matthew), smug and arrogant ("I" speak with the authority of God and you don't, Matthew!) and quite a proponent of 'the red herring' ("There are over 31,000 verses in the Bible and not a single one of them has a positive thing to say about homosexual relationships.")

Brown was simply being honest. It's odd that that is now called arrogance.

No, no ...Brown's attitude would always have been called arrogant based solely on the fact that it's arrogant. Brown has been indoctrinated in the very same way that many Christians who don't possess a theological doctorate have. As you say below, the title of 'scholar' does not necessarily make it so. Brown appears to have no idea of the context of the scriptures that have led him to believe as he does. For me, anyway, that's not good enough.

And I couldn't agree with you more that honesty and truth is a red herring in today's world.

Brown comes across to me as someone who actually wouldn't know honesty and truth (biblically speaking) if it became a snake and bit him. He only knows what he thinks he knows but he uses this limited knowledge in a manner that would imply to others with lesser knowledge that he's the all-knowing oracle of everything scriptural. If I were debating this man he would not have gotten away with some of the things he said without further explanation. But, then again, neither Brown nor I would have the opportunity to get into the nitty gritty of this subject within a 45 minute time restraint.

Vines even admitted that the Leviticus scriptures IS denouncing male on male sexual behavior and is not just about idolatry.

True. However, I and a number of Jewish scholars, would disagree. Refer to the video I presented in post 276. This video explains Leviticus 20:13 very well and I would suggest that people watch it prior to debating this topic. That includes you, 99percent. You evidently HAVEN'T watched it.

"Scholar?" That is a wide open and very loose term these days. One is said to be a "Christian scholar" and hold that the corpse of Jesus was more than likely eaten by dogs after he was thrown down from the Cross. (http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-crossan-vs-jesus.htm)

While I would probably agree with you about the general term 'scholar' it wouldn't hurt you, 99percent, to watch that video if you haven't already. IF you haven't then it just might suggest that you could be afraid to do so in case it bursts your 'anti-gay bubble' ...

Anyway, I'll come back to the rest of your post later.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 323 by 99percentatheism]

It does not change reality.

It's not about changing reality, but being reality. The reality is that people can have children independent of marriage. There is also work being done where the male side of the equation would not be needed. So much for god, huh?

Scientific adultery you mean?

You are making up phrases in a silly manner that do nothing positive for your position.

I have proven that beyond the shadow of a doubt by following the Biblical description of marriage.

For you, perhaps. But there are many others that would disagree. Your attempt of pushing your beliefs onto others is so very, very tired these days.
No one cares what you believe in the manner in which you live your life but you. No one cares what I believe in the manner in which I live my life but me.
What you are unsuccessfully doing is trying to push your views of ancient, irrelevent writings of long dead men, how you interperted it, onto others and expecting them to fall in line.
Good luck with that