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]

Response to 99percentatheism cont'd:

"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)
Addressed in previous post.

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.

Perhaps it is. However, youve been given ample opportunity to analyze the Leviticus texts and come up with something other than temple prostitution and idolatry. But, you havent done this so far.

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.

Let us just stick to the scriptures that Christians use to condemn homosexuality. Im not remotely interested in discussing scriptures that dont exist.

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.

I guess youre referring to the sex act when you link gay with palatable. So, would you say that heterosexual sex is any more palatable than is gay sex? I mean, really? Ive used this quote from Sheldon Cooper of TVs The Big Bang Theory before and Ill use it again to describe in less graphic terms ANY act of sex whether it be gay or straight: Sheldon said, Sex is messy and unhygienic.

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?

I have not built any Strawman. Ive presented biblical texts as is, plus given an exegetical rundown (including a very informative video) that describes what those texts are most likely to mean. That another (probably valid) interpretation might cause someone to lose face because it doesnt tally with their traditionally accepted or their preferred interpretation of said scriptures is just too bad.

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.

As far as I can tell, gay people are not sexually attracted to one another for the sole purpose of taking advantage of biology and making babies same as many straight people. They " heterosexuals - usually desire sex with nary a thought for procreation. As for your Onanism wasted seed is a something heterosexuals accomplish every time they perform recreational sex. They may as well have gay sex since the results are just the same. True? But then, all sex is messy and unhygienic anyway.

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.

And what facts would those be, 99percent? You have no scriptural basis for not being accepting of homosexuals into your Church. In fact, why dont we just do the right thing, drop all the labels and refer to everyone simply as people?

[99percentatheism]

connermt
[Replying to post 323 by 99percentatheism]

It does not change reality.

It's not about changing reality, but being reality.

I couldn't agree more. The gay agenda is incompatible with the reality of Christian truth. Homosexuality is incompatible with the behavior supposed to be displayed by Christians. Unless of course, you can produce ANY scriptures that clearly and definitely support and encourage homosexuality for anybody?

The reality is that people can have children independent of marriage.

Yes of course. Jesus has grand mothers that did just that.

There is also work being done where the male side of the equation would not be needed. So much for god, huh?

Blasphemy is an age old behavior of man.

Scientific adultery you mean?

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

That's hilarious. You do realize why "gay" was applied as a neologism for people that engage in homosexual behavior right? But my use of of the term scientific adultery is perfectly accurate.

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.

Moi? I have NEVER pushed my beliefs on anyone. Either here at this website or in real life. You need to search through my posts and come back and issue an apology to me. I authored "The Gay Denomination" where it is perfectly clear that I do not push my beliefs on anyone. Homosexuals can start their own religious movement and celebrate gay sex to their hearts content there. How utterly tolerance and diversity of me.

No one cares what you believe in the manner in which you live your life but you.

Really? Looks like the L's the G's the B's and the T's demand that I believe their way or else. On the other hand, I desire they find their pleasures where they invent support for them. And if they want to rewrite the Bible to make them feel whatever religious feelings they get from that OK. But the Bible cannot be rewritten for homosexuals and bi-sexuals to somehow demand that they have scriptural support for their new theology without being challenged and contended against.

No one cares what I believe in the manner in which I live my life but me.

That would be true if you strayed in your worldview and left Christians alone. But it is clear that you don't want to do that.

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.

None of that is true. All of those men are alive forever, the scriptures are until the end of the age and I am not trying to push those views on anyone. I am only defending them all against attacks.

Good luck with that

Luck is not needy. Nor is it applicable.

But you are entitled to your opinions. Of course.

[99percentatheism]

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.

Moody Bible Institute is not going to fall to the Gay Pride flag and its warriors. It'll close before that happens. I can assure you.

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.

Completely alright. Homosexuality, bi-sexuality and all the other isms and alitiies can exist wherever they want to gather in their own enclaves and bars. Christians that have left that lifestyle and worldview and don't ever want to enter it should be allowed to STILL live free lives in their choices as well. But it looks far more like Lot's mobs are gathering around them and certainly not tolerance and diversity adherents. In fact, I don't see any tolerance of diversity in the gay agenda at all.

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.

As have "people" that have been conditioned by the propaganda of the gay agenda. A well calculated tactic I must say. Quite a trip from the Mattachine Society to the White House and not to kiddie's in every school. But hey, the history of propaganda is well documented as effective.

This is why the vast majority of them have never heard of temple prostitution and pagan idolatry and its associated practices.

Propaganda and heresy follow a certain similar path. False teachers are not ignored in the Bible. I kind of marvel at the idolatry of gay pride actually. Frenzied idolatry actually. But be that as it may, there is far more rejection of homosexual behavior in the Bible than just the kind associated with practicing false religions. Ever thought about the connection?

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.

Are you selling to me that the rectum and the digestive tracts, and the palates and reproductive tracts of the ancients as they were written about in the Bible have changed in our modern times?

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.

As Dr. Michael Brown pointed out in his debate with gay activist Matthew Vines, those texts are not about idolatry. In fact they include many prohibitions that don't even come close to referencing a connection to idolatrous practices.

Christians, as you claim for Vines, use the Bible based on their own feelings.

That is simply wrong. YOU are simply wrong. No Christian that I have ever heard of except for gay activists in the Church, demand to have their sins excused for. NONE ever! And of course, not only have I been down the alter confessing my sins before the Lord, I notice thousands of others (tens of thousands actually) have done the same thing. Not one screams out from the pews or the streets or on MSNBC that it is sin-a-phobia to repent. And not one demands a congenital orientation for having their sins "affirmed." Only the gay agenda with all of those letters people connected to it . . . demand that.

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.

Yes I believe that fully, that gay behavior is a learned experience. the very word "orientation" defines the process.

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.

You keep going back to the same canard about "two wrongs making aright" and yet there is no adultery pride in The Church preached anywhere except in the church of Hollywood and preached by Hugh Hefner et al . . .. Hollywood which champions gay pride. And I mean LITERALLY champions gay pride. Propaganda and all.

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.

he presents the exact same product as you do. What's cool, is that you and I have been at this a lot longer than Vines has. Think about that for a second. And as his positions and opinion is being eviscerated easily by many Christian scholars and experienced theologians, this is all very structured. You are on Vines' side. He and you follow the same trampled teachings. But notice that I say that you and he have the right to set up your own gay religion. I just show that it is not in the same building or in the same denominations as Bible affirming Churches do. How nice of me huh? I've yet to post on Dr. Brown's website comments but I will shortly. I invite you to join me there as well.

But what fascinates me here, is that you don't see who and what is yoked to the gay agenda. Certainly so many non and anti Christians. Very telling.

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.

For you I would believe that fully.

But Mr. Brown?

Since coming to faith in 1971 as a 16 year-old, heroin-shooting Jewish rock drummer, Dr. Michael Brown has devoted his life to fostering awakening in the Church, sparking moral and cultural revolution in the society, raising up gospel laborers for the nations, and reaching out to his own Jewish people. He is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio broadcast, the president of FIRE School of Ministry, and a professor of Bible and Hebrew studies at several leading seminaries. He has preached in more than 25 nations and is the author of 25 books and numerous scholarly and popular articles. Dr. Brown has debated Jewish rabbis, agnostic professors, and gay activists on radio, TV, and college campuses, and he is widely considered to be the worlds foremost Messianic Jewish apologist. - See more at: http://askdrbrown.org/#sthash.Ym10MrP2.dpuf

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.

Insert whatever gay activist's name for Brown in your screed above. I know you well in a cyber way. You have learned everything you have ever produced from gay activists. That is not an insult, but it is reality. And I'm fairly sure that you are not a Christian right? I on the other hand, come from an atheist and very secular background and lived and worked in the gay community and watched this eh-hem Gay Agenda coming at The Church for over 20-years. That this is now being plied in liberal churches in the western world is no surprise to me or any other conservative Christian. It is "a sign of the times." And a very exciting one. And although I didn't coin the statement I am relaying I still present it accurately as I teach a wary youth in a battered Church environment: If all the bad stuff in the world and in the Bible is true, then all of the good stuff is too. Persecution is inevitable for those that stay on the path and preach the Gospel undefiled.

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.

The parroting from Vines is droning on of self justification. Jude addressed it 2000-years ago. And The Church has held against his opinions and desires ever since. And it will continue to contend for the faith delivered only once to the saints until the end of the age.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 328 by KCKID]


KCKID
Response to 99percentatheism cont'd:

"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)
Addressed in previous post.

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.

Perhaps it is. However, youve been given ample opportunity to analyze the Leviticus texts and come up with something other than temple prostitution and idolatry. But, you havent done this so far.

Well lets have a go then:

Leviticus 18 New International Version (NIV)
Unlawful Sexual Relations

18 The LORD said to Moses, 2 Speak to the Israelites and say to them: I am the LORD your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.
6 No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.
7 Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

NO idolatry there.

8 Do not have sexual relations with your fathers wife; that would dishonor your father.

NO idolatry there.

9 Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your fathers daughter or your mothers daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

NO idolatry there.

10 Do not have sexual relations with your sons daughter or your daughters daughter; that would dishonor you.

11 Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your fathers wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

NO idolatry there.

12 Do not have sexual relations with your fathers sister; she is your fathers close relative.

NO idolatry there.

13 Do not have sexual relations with your mothers sister, because she is your mothers close relative.

14 Do not dishonor your fathers brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

NO idolatry there.

15 Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your sons wife; do not have relations with her.

16 Do not have sexual relations with your brothers wife; that would dishonor your brother.

NO idolatry there.

17 Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her sons daughter or her daughters daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

NO idolatry there.

18 Do not take your wifes sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

NO idolatry there.

19 Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

NO idolatry there.

20 Do not have sexual relations with your neighbors wife and defile yourself with her.

NO idolatry there.

21 Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

YES Idolatry there. But NO mention of homosexuals or homosexuality!!! You may want to look up why most people want to have an abortion. The VAST majority is to make the lives of the parents better. Don't do as "the world and its ways do." Idolatry is not part of what "God's people" should do.

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

NO idolatry there.

23 Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

NO idolatry there.

24 Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
29 Everyone who does any of these detestable things"such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.

Idolatry in regards to MOLECH practices: killing your children to bring a blessing upon your own life. That is to say to make ones life better at the cost of the childs death. Hmmmmm sounds familiar!

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.

Let us just stick to the scriptures that Christians use to condemn homosexuality. Im not remotely interested in discussing scriptures that dont exist.

Really? You seem to veer into the world of gay pride often. Id like to see you offer just one scripture that openly condones, encourages, agrees with, celebrates, affirms or even describes approved of homosexuality ANYWHERE in SCRIPTURE !!!!

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.

I guess youre referring to the sex act when you link gay with palatable. So, would you say that heterosexual sex is any more palatable than is gay sex? I mean, really? Ive used this quote from Sheldon Cooper of TVs The Big Bang Theory before and Ill use it again to describe in less graphic terms ANY act of sex whether it be gay or straight: Sheldon said, Sex is messy and unhygienic.

Ahhhhhh HOLLYWOOD pronouncements. Please excuse me if I dont enter an answer that would get me banned.

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?

I have not built any Strawman. Ive presented biblical texts as is, plus given an exegetical rundown (including a very informative video) that describes what those texts are most likely to mean.

Most likely to mean? From through what lens? Gay Pride? There isnt one place in scripture that approves of homosexual behavior. And BI-sexuality? Cmon now!

[color]That another (probably valid) interpretation might cause someone to lose face because it doesnt tally with their traditionally accepted or their preferred interpretation of said scriptures is just too bad.[/color]

Lose face? Apostasy is a better definition to use. Doesn't Gay theology comes straight out of the world and into The Church by demand to have a worldly paradigm shoved down the throats of Christians worldwide? And both you and I know what Jesus and Jude and Peter and Paul said about that. At least you should by now.

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.

As far as I can tell, gay people are not sexually attracted to one another for the sole purpose of taking advantage of biology and making babies same as many straight people. They " heterosexuals - usually desire sex with nary a thought for procreation. As for your Onanism wasted seed is a something heterosexuals accomplish every time they perform recreational sex. They may as well have gay sex since the results are just the same. True? But then, all sex is messy and unhygienic anyway.

You want to quote a Hollywood TV show for your theological proofs? Idolatry 21st century style springs quickly to mind.

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.

I notice with complete fascination that you never endorse my open-minded tolerance diversity for you and people like Vines inventing any new religion that you so desire? Why do the LGBTs and the other long-winded letters . . .) just invent a new homosexuality promoting religion with all your neologisms in a row and have at it there?

But like Vines, you are entitled to your opinion, but your facts get challenged by facts.

And what facts would those be, 99percent? You have no scriptural basis for not being accepting of homosexuals into your Church.

Jude, Peter, and oh yeah, Jesus . . . dismantled your demands long before you and I were born. I have presented the scriptures many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, MANY, times and times again.

In fact, why dont we just do the right thing, drop all the labels and refer to everyone simply as people?

If the labels were dropped, then people in Christian Churches would be encouraged to reject being people that engaged in same gender sex acts and to repent of that behavior and also reject the world and its ways trying to convince them to be more like the world and its ways then like a Christian called out from that condition. And those "people" preaching Christian truth would not be attacked as homophobes, heterosexists, bigots, hateful, unloving, etc., etc., etc..

Lets see how all of the people that engage in homosexuality and those promoting and engaging in homosexuality treat that consistent Christian position shall we?

Starting with you . . .

[McCulloch]

my use of of the term scientific adultery is perfectly accurate.

Really?

Are you applying the disciplines of science on the behavior of adultery?

[connermt]

[Replying to post 329 by 99percentatheism]

The gay agenda is incompatible with the reality of Christian truth. Homosexuality

As said, the 'gay agenda' is to live a life with the same legalities are respect given to others. In that sense, yes, it's incompatible with the reality of christian truth you seem to be projecting.

Unless of course, you can produce ANY scriptures that clearly and definitely support and encourage homosexuality for anybody?

Personally, I couldn't give two poos about scripture as I'm not that way. However, there are those out there that could. Perhaps you should ask them?

Blasphemy is an age old behavior of man.

As is hate, much of which we've seen by your christian brothers and sisters throughout history. I wonder what your bible says to excuse their actions?

But my use of of the term scientific adultery is perfectly accurate.

That's a claim of fact. It is up to you, by the rules of this site, to support this is a modern term and its definition. Unless, of course, you're making up terms for your own position.

I have NEVER pushed my beliefs on anyone.

One can justifiably argue that, by pontificating on this website you're doing just that. So YES, you have down that.

Looks like the L's the G's the B's and the T's demand that I believe their way or else.

In as much as it doesn't impact other, no they don't. Saying otherwise is simply done out of fear and ignorance from what I've seen. Of course, it could all be an act, which is highly likely.

None of that [...push your views of ancient, irrelevent writings of long dead men, how you interperted it, onto others and expecting them to fall in line.] is true.

That's less than honest. Let's review it, shall we?
push your views of ancient, irrelevent writings of long dead men - the bible. Writing of long dead men that, according to many, are irrelevant in today's world as they are being used today = statement true
how you interperted it - so you speak for all humanity in your interpretation? I don't thing so = statement true
onto others and expecting them to fall in line. - that's why you're here so adamantly professing your views as right and all others as wrong = statement true
Thus, your claim of 'none of that being true' is false

Luck is not needy. Nor is it applicable.

Luck is more prevalent than the god your worship, so it seems it not only needed, but necessary.

[99percentatheism]

my use of of the term scientific adultery is perfectly accurate.

Really?

Are you applying the disciplines of science on the behavior of adultery?

Yup.

And, how nice of you to be checking in every once in awhile McCulloch. I feel so honored having one of you legends chime in on this subject.

"Scientific adultery" how is that not accurate to in vitro fertilization OR using a fertilized egg OR one of the couple having sex with someone else to "make the baby" for a couple of female homosexuals or a couple of male homosexuals that are "married" to one another? I stand on my definition. And I think that if you contemplate this for a second or two, you will too.

Two "married" men or two "married" women cannot make a baby together.

Yeah, I'm fairly cool with my description.

[99percentatheism]

connermt
[Replying to post 329 by 99percentatheism]

The gay agenda is incompatible with the reality of Christian truth. Homosexuality

As said, the 'gay agenda' is to live a life with the same legalities are respect given to others. In that sense, yes, it's incompatible with the reality of christian truth you seem to be projecting.

Oh it is far more than just the legalities given to others. It promotes homosexuality down to kindergartners and beyond. But no matter. We can deal with that as we have to. The "Christian truth" I am projecting come straight from the Bible. Nothing "seem" about it.

Unless of course, you can produce ANY scriptures that clearly and definitely support and encourage homosexuality for anybody?

Personally, I couldn't give two poos about scripture as I'm not that way. However, there are those out there that could. Perhaps you should ask them?

I have and they can't.

Blasphemy is an age old behavior of man.

As is hate, much of which we've seen by your christian brothers and sisters throughout history. I wonder what your bible says to excuse their actions?

It opposes hate as much as it does the gay agenda. maybe you could show me where Torquemada, the KKK and the LGBT Community get any support from scriptures? I know they say they can but I'd like to see a neutral person such as yourself do the math so to speak. Christians that have done wonderful things for mankind in and outside of the Church have amassed far greater numbers of wonderful things than the detractors.

But my use of of the term scientific adultery is perfectly accurate.

That's a claim of fact. It is up to you, by the rules of this site, to support this is a modern term and its definition. Unless, of course, you're making up terms for your own position.

I clearly am making up neologisms for my own positions. Ever heard of the word "gay" or "heterosexist?" Notice spell check doesn't even recognize heterosexist? It's underlined red both times I spelled it. But still in vitro fertilization OR using some OTHER man or woman to make a baby is scientific adultery no matter how you slice the "Christian marriage pie" if you are using someone outside that marriage "covenant. I'm fairly sure that you can see that facts in that. But I'm only fairly sure.

I have NEVER pushed my beliefs on anyone.

One can justifiably argue that, by pontificating on this website you're doing just that. So YES, you have down that.

Looks like the L's the G's the B's and the T's demand that I believe their way or else.

In as much as it doesn't impact other, no they don't. Saying otherwise is simply done out of fear and ignorance from what I've seen. Of course, it could all be an act, which is highly likely.

Um er, uh, OK. But LGBT-ism sure looks to be imposing their beliefs on others by secular law. Sex acts really shouldn't be able to define a new community and classification of minority but here we are.

None of that [...push your views of ancient, irrelevent writings of long dead men, how you interperted it, onto others and expecting them to fall in line.] is true.

That's less than honest. Let's review it, shall we?

That is an insult and more than likely a rule violation here. But I won't report you because I need your views to dismantle.

push your views of ancient, irrelevent writings of long dead men - the bible. Writing of long dead men that, according to many, are irrelevant in today's world as they are being used today = statement true

Only to you and in your own mind and worldview. To a billion Christians, no it's not.

how you interperted it - so you speak for all humanity in your interpretation? I don't thing so = statement true

I'm not interpreting anything. I am only agreeing with how the words are defined as they are written down in sentences. You are wrong once more.

onto others and expecting them to fall in line. - that's why you're here so adamantly professing your views as right and all others as wrong = statement true

This is a debate website. A place where differing views are supposed to be different. You know tolerant of diversity? I am never going to be supportive of the gay agenda. Never. If you don't like that too bad. You have the right to your worldviews and I am not here to change your mind. I believe what Paul wrote in Romans id sensible.

Thus, your claim of 'none of that being true' is false

With you as judge what else can be expected. trust me, your judgement of me does not even raise my pulse.

Luck is not needy. Nor is it applicable.

Luck is more prevalent than the god your worship, so it seems it not only needed, but necessary.

Luck cannot be counted on. Creation literally can. Unless you can get 0 x any number you can come up with to come up with anything other than nothing. Last time I looked, 0 x 62-trillion = 0 Good luck won't ever help you in your futility of expecting luck to make anything happen. And for the record, I also don't believe in the Puppet Master God so demanded by detractors of Theism.

But hey, that's just a fundamentalist talking. Maybe I could be wrong. But I'm quite sure my math teacher in College or Kindergarten would be giving my facts the nod.

[McCulloch]

"Scientific adultery" how is that not accurate to in vitro fertilization OR using a fertilized egg OR one of the couple having sex with someone else to "make the baby" for a couple of female homosexuals or a couple of male homosexuals that are "married" to one another? I stand on my definition. And I think that if you contemplate this for a second or two, you will too.

Two "married" men or two "married" women cannot make a baby together.

Yeah, I'm fairly cool with my description.

I thought that adultery was about sex. So methods of getting a baby which do not involve having sex are not adulterous.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 335 by 99percentatheism]

There's a lot of paranoia listed there 99. It makes me wonder where the fear's coming from? Seems if ones faith and god is strong, there's nothing to fear. Yet, a small group of christians with weak faith feel the need to belittle others in the name of their god out of fear....
It's truly sad and unbecoming of followers of christ
But then again, what we 'know' of this christ is only what other selected people tell us so it's no surprise where the fear comes from.

But why visit that fear on others....? That's what doesn't make sense