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]

"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.

Well actually, since you are replying to my referencing same gender people, can homosexuals commit adultery anyway since there is no such thing as same gender "marriage" in the Biblical definition of marriage? And of course non and anti Christians can do as they please about any sexual ethic they desire. Right?

Your totally unsurprising secular and non Christian opinion is duly noted. You must have not noticed that it is a brand new world in which we ALL must live now. Still though, a "baby" from a person other than one of the "married" couple, is not the child (biological child) of a married couple.

[mwtech]

I amazed that people confuse "promoting homosexuality" with promoting tolerance. As if teaching kindergardeners that black and white and Asian are all just fine is promoting being black to kindergardeners. A straight child is not going to "turn gay" any more than a white child will turn black.

[KCKID]

[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.

That's right. No idolatry there. The father, however, is dishonored by such a sexual relation.

8 Do not have sexual relations with your fathers wife; that would dishonor your father.
NO idolatry there.

That's right. No idolatry there. The father, however, is dishonored by such a sexual relation.

]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.

That's right. No idolatry there. There are, however, the parents of said daughter who are, as per the consistent theme of these commands, dishonored by such a sexual relation.

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

While you didn't say, "there is no idolatry there," there isn't. However, there ARE those that are dishonored by such a sexual relation.

11 Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your fathers wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
NO idolatry there.

As above. We haven't yet reached the 'idolatry' part.

12 Do not have sexual relations with your fathers sister; she is your fathers close relative.
NO idolatry there.

As above.

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.

As above. Are you beginning to get the picture with regard to their sexual relations dishonoring someone else?

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.

As above. You're unwittingly making my point for me that there is no idolatry there. Not so far. We haven't got to the 'idolatry' part yet. Soon, however.

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.

As above.

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.

Correct. As above. According to this text it appears to be okay to have sexual relations with your sister-in-law when your wife dies. While the wife is living, however, she would be dishonored by such a sexual relation. THIS text, if anything, supports the condemnation of divorce and remarriage. Remarriage is only permissible when one of the married partners dies.

19 Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
NO idolatry there.

I'm not sure about the 'dishonoring' in this one but you're right, there is no idolatry there.

20 Do not have sexual relations with your neighbors wife and defile yourself with her.
NO idolatry there.

That's right. There's no idolatry there. The husband of the neighbor's wife, however, is dishonored as a result of the sexual relation.

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.

Bingo! You will notice that the aforementioned sexual acts (those before Leviticus 18:21) don't appear to be in and of themselves an offense. It's that these sexual acts, as a result, 'dishonor' someone else. If they did not dishonor someone else the acts themselves may not be taboo at all, at least not in the context of how they read. In verse 21, however, it's "GOD" that is being dishonored based on the first three commands of the Big Ten that forbid such things. It's rather interesting to note that "God" doesn't appear to give a hoot about the children being sacrificed to Molech. Moreover, any emotional consideration or concern for the poor kids being killed doesn't appear to be "God's" point at all. It's the sacrificing of said children to a FALSE GOD that appears to irk "God". Read it.

Incidentally, I keep apostrophizing "God" because it was 'man' and not God that wrote the Bible.

But NO mention of homosexuals or homosexuality!!!

Um, I don't know what point you're trying to make here ...despite all of the exclamation points that are (I guess) supposed to make this a profound statement.

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.

Again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I already acknowledge that the biblical God hates idolatry and that "God's people" should not do this. In fact, that's my whole point! Whether or not He would object to abortion (since said children are not being sacrificed to an idol) I have no idea. According to the dispassionate 'rules' of Leviticus it might not be such a stretch to say that "God" would be indifferent as long as idolatry or the 'dishonoring' of someone else was not involved. Perhaps the aborted child is being dishonored, I really don't know.

22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
NO idolatry there.

There absolutely IS idolatry there. Even the definition of the term "abomination" describes such a practice as being affiliated with idolatry. Check your Bible Concordance. Man/man relationships other than in the context of idolatry appears to dishonor no one. WHEN in the context of idolatry, however, this practice dishonors "God". You will notice that any reference to female/female relations is absent from this text. Since 'homosexuality' also includes females, why would this be, do you think?

The worship practices of Molech have already been established in Leviticus 18:21. Then comes the 'man lying' text in the following verse. This, likely but not positively since there is ambiguity involved here, relates to either temple prostitution or/and the worship practices associated with Molech AS PER THE PRECEDING VERSE! There are plenty of Internet sites that describe such practices without my yet again spending any more time on them.

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.

Again, this follows the Molech text of Leviticus 18:21. Apparently the image of Molech resembled part bull, part human. There were also other animals and birds that were 'graven' into 'images to be not only worshiped but also for sexual fertility rites ...as referenced by Paul in Romans 1:25. Again, there is a great deal on the Internet describing such acts in honor of the 'false' gods. It's not such a stretch to believe that real animals on which the idols were modeled would have also been used for sexual purposes. We are talking about VERY different times and VERY different cultures. One has to bear this in mind when debating these issues.

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!

I'd say that you're using some dramatic license here to try and bolster your own specific agenda, whatever that agenda might be.

More later.

[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.

That's right. No idolatry there. The father, however, is dishonored by such a sexual relation.

8 Do not have sexual relations with your fathers wife; that would dishonor your father.
NO idolatry there.

That's right. No idolatry there. The father, however, is dishonored by such a sexual relation.

]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.

That's right. No idolatry there. There are, however, the parents of said daughter who are, as per the consistent theme of these commands, dishonored by such a sexual relation.

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

While you didn't say, "there is no idolatry there," there isn't. However, there ARE those that are dishonored by such a sexual relation.

11 Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your fathers wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
NO idolatry there.

As above. We haven't yet reached the 'idolatry' part.

12 Do not have sexual relations with your fathers sister; she is your fathers close relative.
NO idolatry there.

As above.

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.

As above. Are you beginning to get the picture with regard to their sexual relations dishonoring someone else?

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.

As above. You're unwittingly making my point for me that there is no idolatry there. Not so far. We haven't got to the 'idolatry' part yet. Soon, however.

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.

As above.

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.

Correct. As above. According to this text it appears to be okay to have sexual relations with your sister-in-law when your wife dies. While the wife is living, however, she would be dishonored by such a sexual relation. THIS text, if anything, supports the condemnation of divorce and remarriage. Remarriage is only permissible when one of the married partners dies.

19 Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
NO idolatry there.

I'm not sure about the 'dishonoring' in this one but you're right, there is no idolatry there.

20 Do not have sexual relations with your neighbors wife and defile yourself with her.
NO idolatry there.

That's right. There's no idolatry there. The husband of the neighbor's wife, however, is dishonored as a result of the sexual relation.

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.

Bingo! You will notice that the aforementioned sexual acts (those before Leviticus 18:21) don't appear to be in and of themselves an offense. It's that these sexual acts, as a result, 'dishonor' someone else. If they did not dishonor someone else the acts themselves may not be taboo at all, at least not in the context of how they read. In verse 21, however, it's "GOD" that is being dishonored based on the first three commands of the Big Ten that forbid such things. It's rather interesting to note that "God" doesn't appear to give a hoot about the children being sacrificed to Molech. Moreover, any emotional consideration or concern for the poor kids being killed doesn't appear to be "God's" point at all. It's the sacrificing of said children to a FALSE GOD that appears to irk "God". Read it.

Incidentally, I keep apostrophizing "God" because it was 'man' and not God that wrote the Bible.

But NO mention of homosexuals or homosexuality!!!

Um, I don't know what point you're trying to make here ...despite all of the exclamation points that are (I guess) supposed to make this a profound statement.

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.

Again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I already acknowledge that the biblical God hates idolatry and that "God's people" should not do this. In fact, that's my whole point! Whether or not He would object to abortion (since said children are not being sacrificed to an idol) I have no idea. According to the dispassionate 'rules' of Leviticus it might not be such a stretch to say that "God" would be indifferent as long as idolatry or the 'dishonoring' of someone else was not involved. Perhaps the aborted child is being dishonored, I really don't know.

22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
NO idolatry there.

There absolutely IS idolatry there. Even the definition of the term "abomination" describes such a practice as being affiliated with idolatry. Check your Bible Concordance. Man/man relationships other than in the context of idolatry appears to dishonor no one. WHEN in the context of idolatry, however, this practice dishonors "God". You will notice that any reference to female/female relations is absent from this text. Since 'homosexuality' also includes females, why would this be, do you think?

The worship practices of Molech have already been established in Leviticus 18:21. Then comes the 'man lying' text in the following verse. This, likely but not positively since there is ambiguity involved here, relates to either temple prostitution or/and the worship practices associated with Molech AS PER THE PRECEDING VERSE! There are plenty of Internet sites that describe such practices without my yet again spending any more time on them.

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.

Again, this follows the Molech text of Leviticus 18:21. Apparently the image of Molech resembled part bull, part human. There were also other animals and birds that were 'graven' into 'images to be not only worshiped but also for sexual fertility rites ...as referenced by Paul in Romans 1:25. Again, there is a great deal on the Internet describing such acts in honor of the 'false' gods. It's not such a stretch to believe that real animals on which the idols were modeled would have also been used for sexual purposes. We are talking about VERY different times and VERY different cultures. One has to bear this in mind when debating these issues.

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!

I'd say that you're using some dramatic license here to try and bolster your own specific agenda, whatever that agenda might be.

More later.

You (and the gay liberation/gay theology movement) base your entire argument on texts that are not there? If you are connecting homosexuals and homosexuality to idolatry based on the Leviticus scriptures we are discussing, then you have to connect every other one of the acts proscribed as to idolatry as well. That is stretching reality of course too far. Just because homosexuality is listed after Molech practices hardly makes the two one and the same thing. The Leviticus texts are simply behaviors and actions and of course beliefs that are listed and denounced in extremely negative ways.

And then of course, we have the entire witness and testimony of scripture that has not one single positive reference to male or female homosexual behavior anywhere in it. You are not only straining at gnats, you are straining at the dust on gnats. And since we have the Bible describing sexuality, sexual functions and sexual ethics quite accurately . . . we would expect to see the Gay Community as we understand it today, described as a welcomed and "affirmed" part of the community. But it is certainly not possible to see that description or even a reference to it anywhere in scripture. But what we do see is a decidedly un-affirming consistency from beginning to end.

Now, you have made your stand with idolatry and gay sex and I have made the assertion that it is not justified to promote the gay agenda based on the portion of Leviticus that gay theology seems to rely on. It is time now, for you to produce pro homosexuality scriptures that clearly and UN-ambiguously support, condone and celebrates gay sex and gay behavior "as we know it today." There are two that spring quickly to my mind that I have debated with radio show hosts about: David and Jonathan and the Roman Commander and his young servant. And Ruth and Naomi? I think that even you would find the gay pride position on Ruth and Naomi, a daughter in law and mother in law, to be so far over the top of Christian and Israelite morality to be given any theological quarter.

Or, you can simply answer the OP now and say that "Mainstream Christianity" doesn't have to submit to gay (LGBT and additional letters 1 through whatever inclusive) authority or gay pride demands at all and to simply allow the two communities to exist as two distinct and separate (and separated) elements in society. Let the future develop and define what will happen to both.

Tolerance and diversity in action.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 337 by connermt]

Ad hom after 4900 posts?

There's a lot of paranoia listed there 99.

Inaccurate use of the word paranoia. But not surprising.

It makes me wonder where the fear's coming from?

Why do you need to enter your personal ponderings in a debate thread? Why not try an answer instead.

Seems if ones faith and god is strong, there's nothing to fear.

And you know this how?

Yet, a small group of christians with weak faith feel the need to belittle others in the name of their god out of fear....

You use the small c for Christians and you talk about belittling others?

It's truly sad and unbecoming of followers of christ

Is this an ad hom? Or just belittling "christ." (sic)

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.

Does that include what gay activists tell us of Christ? From what I've seen of it (which is legion) their theology is so altogether different from that described by the original writers of the New Testament texts to be what is defined as "a different Gospel." Unless of course, in one of your 4900-plus posts someone has delivered some pro homosexuality scriptures to your vast experience here? By all means, enlighten us. Show us with capitalization or not where the pro homosexuality texts are abundant.

Think

Applicable to all sir.

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

You have read the rhetoric from gay pride activists? Although homosexuals male and female varieties are now found celebrated and hero-ized in media and courts from sea to shining sea . . we are constantly being inundated with propaganda that the sky is falling on them at the same time.

As a veteran of over 4500-posts has written:

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

Think

Boomerang advice if ever there was some.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 342 by 99percentatheism]

I haven't seen anyone here not acknowledging there are extremists on every camp - yours included. And what these extremists tend to demand is unrealistic (gay people shouldn't attend church and should be killed because god hates them OR churches should be forced legally to marry gay people). That said, the vast majority of people in the LGBT community don't give two shakes about rather or not you or I accept their religion. Personally, I think it's silly for anyone (gay or not) to want to be a christian. But that's their right to decide on their own.
Your arguing over what god says in the bible (which isn't god saying anything, but people who were imperfect and long dead saying what god said/want much like you're doing here) is only as reliable as the individuals. Which is to say, not very.
You want to put your faith in the words of men who claim their words were divinely inspired? By all means. That said, while you can complain about it until your jaw locks up, it doesn't change the fact that 1) it's not your place to deceide one's religious belief and 2) it doesn't matter - christianity is slowly accepting those different than itself. It's evolving. It always has and always will. Why? Because it's a man made religion. Trying to make it something else (like a divinely inspired religion) is futile, wrong and dishonest.
Let's be honest here - the need to defend christainity from something like this shows a lack of faith in your god to protect it.

[99percentatheism]

connermt
[Replying to post 342 by 99percentatheism]

I haven't seen anyone here not acknowledging there are extremists on every camp - yours included.

Extremist Christians would be the ones like Jesus. So much for the Taliban comparison. That can be filed appropriately now.

And what these extremists tend to demand is unrealistic (gay people shouldn't attend church and should be killed because god hates them OR churches should be forced legally to marry gay people).

Do you have any evidence of this? Casting the dust from your feet towards or at someone is hardly deadly. And as someone that is attacked time and time again here, I know that I for one have authored a thread with 103353 views and it's all about gays going to church. Their own denomination in fact.

That said, the vast majority of people in the LGBT community don't give two shakes about rather or not you or I accept their religion.

It doesn't seem that way when you see what they demand and how.

Personally, I think it's silly for anyone (gay or not) to want to be a christian. But that's their right to decide on their own.

"Silly?" Hmm, rather congenial description.

Your arguing over what god says in the bible (which isn't god saying anything, but people who were imperfect and long dead saying what god said/want much like you're doing here) is only as reliable as the individuals. Which is to say, not very.

I think it's silly for someone to say that but you are entitled to your opinion.

You want to put your faith in the words of men who claim their words were divinely inspired? By all means.

We don't need your approval for that.

That said, while you can complain about it until your jaw locks up, it doesn't change the fact that 1) it's not your place to deceide one's religious belief and 2) it doesn't matter - christianity is slowly accepting those different than itself.

Weeds and wheat. How did Jesus know? Good guess or supernatural?

It's evolving.

Into non or anti Christianity?

It always has and always will. Why? Because it's a man made religion. Trying to make it something else (like a divinely inspired religion) is futile, wrong and dishonest.

You left out the part where you write "in my opinion." Which you are entitled to. But reality says otherwise. If men had written everything in the Bible down as men are apt to do, then there would be a Church like a club or bar scene with no holds barred. Why would anyone want to invent a religion that kicks out people that have lots of money?

Let's be honest here - the need to defend christainity from something like this shows a lack of faith in your god to protect it.

That's laughable. Agreeing with scripture about what is truth and what is a lie about it is simply being honest. The OP is about "Mainstream Christianity" ever accepting "gays." What the heck is a "gay" anyway? Christianity deals with people who are sinners that desire to repent of their sins, be forgiven of those sins and live for Christ and each other. It is not Club Hedonism. No matter how it is "evolving."

[KCKID]

You (and the gay liberation/gay theology movement) base your entire argument on texts that are not there?

I have nothing to do with any gay liberation or gay theology movement. Nor have I ever made any such announcement on this forum or anywhere else of belonging to any such movement. This is just one of your desperate attempts to discredit me. I'm just an Average Joe who pretty much does his own thing.

As for my basing my entire argument on 'texts that are not there' ...the last time I checked my Bible those Leviticus texts were most definitely there. And, though they are there they just don't mean what you and the majority of Christians think they mean. However, as I've always maintained, I'm open to believing differently if such evidence presents itself. It wouldn't change my viewpoint that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is 'hardwired' within a person and is therefore 'morally neutral'. However, I would have no alternative other than to honestly acknowledge that Leviticus (notwithstanding that it was written by ignorant, superstitious and ancient men) does indeed condemn homosexuality as we refer to the term today. So far I haven't come across any convincing evidence that the scriptures offer across-the-board condemnation of homosexuality. One might well speculate that Paul and company would frown on gay relationships - just as many Christians do today - but speculation is not what is being debated here.

If you are connecting homosexuals and homosexuality to idolatry based on the Leviticus scriptures we are discussing, then you have to connect every other one of the acts proscribed as to idolatry as well. That is stretching reality of course too far.

Not so. It's already been explained quite adequately that the Molech text, that seems to appear out of nowhere, sets the scene for the couple of texts that follow. To verify this, as was pointed out, the term 'abomination' most certainly gives the 'man lying' text an idolatry connection. Blame the authors for collating this list in the manner they did. Anyway, there's no need to take my word for it. Check out 'abomination' in your Bible Concordance.

Just because homosexuality is listed after Molech practices hardly makes the two one and the same thing.

Then the text about child sacrifice is totally out of place in that list. Again, blame the authors who collated the list, not me. That said, I again need to remind you of the definition of 'abomination' that most definitely ties Leviticus 18:22 with 18:21. The entire book is relating to the Tribe of the Levites anyway so I'm not sure why we're spending so much time discussing something that in no way relates to us. I mean, let's be serious. Sacrificing children to Molech ...this relates to US??

The Leviticus texts are simply behaviors and actions and of course beliefs that are listed and denounced in extremely negative ways.

Yes indeedy ...they certainly are.

Tell me, did you really abandon atheism in lieu of a 'better belief' such as the crazy stuff as contained within the pages of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc.?

And then of course, we have the entire witness and testimony of scripture that has not one single positive reference to male or female homosexual behavior anywhere in it. You are not only straining at gnats, you are straining at the dust on gnats.

Straining at the dust on gnats, eh? I like that. I'd like to fit that expression into my conversations with others at least once a day. You know, I don't know about you but I sometimes ask myself the question as to why I even bother discussing the 'silly' texts of the Bible with others when I know that they're meaningless to we of today. Don't you ever feel as stupid as I do?

And since we have the Bible describing sexuality, sexual functions and sexual ethics quite accurately . . . we would expect to see the Gay Community as we understand it today, described as a welcomed and "affirmed" part of the community. But it is certainly not possible to see that description or even a reference to it anywhere in scripture. But what we do see is a decidedly un-affirming consistency from beginning to end.

As I say above, I do acknowledge that the people of biblical times would probably not have approved of male/male or female/female sexual relations; however, they were, obviously, not near as enlightened about human sexuality as we are today. How could they be? Even if some of these people were gay themselves (as some would have been) they would have had to keep their sexuality to themselves for the same reasons gay people today, until recently, have remained in the closet. Be that as it may, the actual scriptures that reference homosexual activity don't reflect personal opinions about homosexuality but rather pagan idol worship and the practices that were associated with it. As I've suggested many times, check out the Internet sites that deal with pagan idolatry and you'll quickly get the picture.*

Now, you have made your stand with idolatry and gay sex and I have made the assertion that it is not justified to promote the gay agenda based on the portion of Leviticus that gay theology seems to rely on.

Once again, 99percent, you're deceptively using the term 'gay theology' to someone who has no affiliation with any so-called (by you only as far as I can tell) 'gay theology movement'. I present the scriptures 'as is' and also decipher them 'as is' according to their context. If they have been deciphered wrongly then no amount of 'gay theology' can stand up to a 'right' interpretation. So far, I haven't been convinced by any such 'right' interpretation since none, other than my own, have been forthcoming.

It is time now, for you to produce pro homosexuality scriptures that clearly and UN-ambiguously support, condone and celebrates gay sex and gay behavior "as we know it today." There are two that spring quickly to my mind that I have debated with radio show hosts about: David and Jonathan and the Roman Commander and his young servant. And Ruth and Naomi? I think that even you would find the gay pride position on Ruth and Naomi, a daughter in law and mother in law, to be so far over the top of Christian and Israelite morality to be given any theological quarter.

My 'task' here is to counter the so-called 'clobber passages' of scripture that are used constantly by Christians to demean and to dehumanize gay people. Someone else can address the folks you mention. I've never had to use them with which to make my case.

Or, you can simply answer the OP now and say that "Mainstream Christianity" doesn't have to submit to gay (LGBT and additional letters 1 through whatever inclusive)

Yep, I admit that it's getting to be quite a mouthful . . .

authority or gay pride demands at all and to simply allow the two communities to exist as two distinct and separate (and separated) elements in society. Let the future develop and define what will happen to both.

Tolerance and diversity in action.

Well, as you already know, more and more Christian Churches are opening their doors to gay people just as the Churches that you are affiliated with have always opened their doors to 'scriptural adulterers' without question. I guess the worst one could say is that there's enough hypocrisy within Christianity to be shared around. What say . . .?

* I'm sure that you know as well as I do what the pagan worship practices entailed and that scriptural references are certainly made regarding the homosexual practices associated with such idolatry. The question is, why do you continue to ignore this or otherwise pretend that such passages don't exist? Would you really persist in your condemnation of gay people for the sake of pride?

[connermt]

[Replying to post 344 by 99percentatheism]

Extremist Christians would be the ones like Jesus.

At the time, perhaps. These days, extremists would be people like WBBC, the Taliban, random suicide bombers, people who advocate death for OT type of actions, etc.

Do you have any evidence of this?

By definition of 'extremist' and their actions

It doesn't seem that way when you see what they demand and how.

Then you need to look at them as jesus would have. Which you're not currently.

"Silly?" Hmm, rather congenial description.

Yes, silly (though there are other words I'd like to use but are prohibited per site rules - but I'm sure you have imagine what they are). Webster.com can provide you the definition if you need further clarification

I think it's silly for someone to say that...

Of course you would because it paints your views in a negative light.

We don't need your approval for that.

But you have it. You're welcome

Weeds and wheat. How did Jesus know? Good guess or supernatural?

So that you're clear: 1) it's not your place to deceide one's religious belief and 2) it doesn't matter - christianity is slowly accepting those different than itself.
Now then, if you wish to take it upon yourself to decide the religious beliefs of others, that's your choice. But it won't work and, as such, would be a fruitless endeavor. Why? Because of free will, because of (in the US at least) there's freedom to practice religion as one (basically) sees fit and christianity has changed and is changing rather you like it or not.

If men had written everything in the Bible down as men are apt to do, then there would be a Church like a club or bar scene with no holds barred.

Which is the way it is today and, oddly enough, the way you are advocating. It's ironic that you can't see that. But not totally unexpected. Hate and fear tend to blind people to their own actions.

That's laughable.

Christiainity is, indeed, laughable. The need to defend such a condition is laughable as well. But then again, your god hasn't done much to protect it over the centuries: child molestating, helping Nazis escapse 'justice' after the war, the pope's hat, the many, many, many sects of the same religion that can't even agree with each other, the gospels that are supposed to tell the same story but vary in actions, places, etc.....truly divinely inspired indeed

[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.

Well actually, since you are replying to my referencing same gender people, can homosexuals commit adultery anyway since there is no such thing as same gender "marriage" in the Biblical definition of marriage? And of course non and anti Christians can do as they please about any sexual ethic they desire. Right?

Your totally unsurprising secular and non Christian opinion is duly noted. You must have not noticed that it is a brand new world in which we ALL must live now. Still though, a "baby" from a person other than one of the "married" couple, is not the child (biological child) of a married couple.