Will gays EVER be accepted by mainstream Christianity?

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

KCKID
Guru
Posts: 1534
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:29 pm
Location: Townsville, Australia

Will gays EVER be accepted by mainstream Christianity?

Post #1

Post by KCKID »

The Mainstream Christian Church (i.e. the 'Christian Church' in general) appears to have an unshakable belief that gay people cannot possibly be Christians. Therefore gay people will always be regarded as 'lepers' because the mainstream Church believes that homosexuality is against the will of God and the actual practicing of such is a 'grave sin'. This is in spite of the fact that nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality referred to as a grave sin. This more comes from the minds of people who have received a life time of brainwashing into believing this. Where homosexual activity IS mentioned in scripture it almost always - in fact, PROBABLY always - refers to the practice of idolatry and not as WE today refer to homosexuality. There are those Christians who are so appalled at the notion that gay people might desire to integrate with 'actual Christians' within their Church community that they suggest gays start their own denomination ...minus the 'Christian' prefix, of course, which would be sacrilege. Such folks want nothing to do with homosexual people and their minds appear to be set on this.

Below is a recent item from The Guardian that tells of the plight of gay Christians in Uganda. In our particular neck of the woods (probably the majority of those of us who participate on the forum) gays have no fear of state imposed death or life imprisonment as do those in places such as Uganda. Gays do, however, have a stigma placed on them by most Christians that results in rejection by the mainstream Church and, indeed, by God himself. And, of course, the rejection of God is tantamount to death or, worse still, eternal torment. The latter makes the penalty imposed on gays in Uganda pale by comparison.

Will mainstream Christianity ever be accepting of people whose only 'sin' is that they happen to be gay ...i.e. an involuntary sexual attraction between two people of the same gender? If not, why not? Please, give your HONEST reasons.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/f ... ry-kampala

Sunday is a special day in Uganda, the conservative east African country that is threatening to put gay people behind bars for life. On Sunday you can see families flocking to churches all over the country for prayer, wearing their best clothes.

The sermons are predictable. Church leaders will pray for divine intervention against the corrupt leaders, poverty and the potholed roads, and then finally call doom upon the country's homosexuals who are sinning against the Christian God and ruining African culture.

But not at a tiny church tucked away in one of Kampala's suburbs. Here, gay people meet in devoted challenge to mainstream denominations that have declared them outcasts. With dread-locked hair and in jeans and bathroom slippers, members of this congregation would stand out in the prim and proper evangelical church I sometimes go to. I feel overdressed in my white dress.

"Here we are all about freedom," Pepe Onziema, a gay rights activist tells me. "It is a universal church. We welcome people whether gay or straight."

The gates may be open but the road to the church that calls itself a friendship and reconciliation centre is not paved with sleek cars or thronged with believers. The worshippers trickle in. They take their seats, but not before surveying the crowd furtively, trying to identify everyone. Their life depends on this vigilance.

In Uganda, police raid homes and arrest those they suspect to be gay. Homosexuality is an offence under the penal code. The president, Yoweri Museveni, refuses to pass a bill that seeks to strengthen the punishments for homosexuality to include life imprisonment, but isn’t under pressure to do so. Conservative Christian churches, under the auspices of the Uganda Joint Christian Council, refuse to accept homosexuals in spite of more gay-friendly approaches from parent churches abroad. The anti-gay furnace is fanned by American evangelical churches that have made it their mission to free Africa of homosexuality, saying it is alien to African culture.

The gay Ugandan church seeks to spread an alternative gospel of love and acceptance for all. On this particular Sunday, it is the memorial of David Kato, a gay rights activist who was murdered in 2011. So the numbers are bigger than usual. When the church was started by Bishop Christopher Senyonjo (who has since been thrown out of the Anglican Church for ministering to gay people), the gay community in Uganda attended devotedly. But with arrests and growing anti-gay sentiments, threats to their lives and arrests, fewer and fewer people come to the church.

"Our numbers have reduced ever since we started in 2008," Denis, the chaplain and a primary school teacher, tells me. "It is worse now that the bill has been passed." If Denis's employees knew of his orientation or his calling, he would certainly lose his job. "This is the only place we can feel at home. Here we can worship God without feeling guilty or fearing persecution."

Joining a gay congregation in Uganda is risky but Onziema says it is necessary in a society that greatly values community. For on Sundays, when many Ugandans spend time with their families, most gay people have nowhere to go. "Coming here lets us know that we are not alone and gives us the strength to continue the struggle," Onziema says.

You can see both hope and fear in the eyes of the congregation as they read Bible verses proclaiming God's protection over them and sing "What a friend we have in Jesus".

Here, there are no thunderous shouts of praise, speaking in tongues or Bible-thumping that is characteristic of the evangelism that is so trendy in the country. In the quiet worship of Uganda's gay community, there is a still hope and the kind of courage you can only muster after you have seen it all and there is nothing left to fear. Sunday is also the day gay people in Uganda cast off their masks to chat about the latest fashion, cars and celebrities.

"You thought we were going to pray that God stops the anti-homosexuality bill," Mugisha, the head of Sexual Minorities Uganda, asks me with laughter and mischief in his voice. "It will not pass. We do not need to pray for that."

Mugisha is for a moment free from his job, his life, fighting for the basic human rights of gay people. "I come here for the community. It is better than staying home alone," he says. As the service ends, members of the congregation are asked to say something in memory of David Kato, whose spirit of resilience they will need as they walk out of the church into their daily routine.

"We know he did not die in vain," Mugisha says. "One day we shall be accepted."

99percentatheism
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3083
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:49 am

Post #471

Post by 99percentatheism »

KCKID wrote: [Replying to post 461 by 99percentatheism]

Hmmm . . .I've been debating this topic with you for what seems like forever, 99percent. However, I don't recall having asked you this simple question: In your opinion WHAT IS IT specifically about homosexuality that is 'wrong'? Why is it wrong? Moreover, if gay marriage becomes nationally recognized - in your case the U.S.A., in my case Australia - in your opinion, WHAT IS IT specifically that will cause 'the sky to fall' and how will this negatively affect society?

Please, just respond to the questions with simple, reader-friendly language and try to keep the 'religious padding' to a minimum. If your answer/s is/are convincing then there might be some of us who could possibly swing your way regarding this topic. But, 'your case' must be convincing. So far that has not been the case so here is your chance to perhaps win over some of us who would normally disagree with you.

Thank you.
I cannot do what you require because it would entail referencing and providing web-based material that would get me banned. All I can do is offer a counter position to the incessant pro homosexuality positions and propaganda of gay culture and the gay agenda, as it attacks The Church and that I encounter it here.

And, having encountered so many gay pride proponents, I do not at all believe that there is even one pro homosexuality adherent here that will be persuaded to leave their ideology and the choices they have grasped so firmly. I am not here to evangelize homosexuals and their legion of supporters. I am here to contend for the faith delivered only once to the saints. And I am confident that honesty, logic and the work done by the Apostles support the positions I provide.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Post #472

Post by Danmark »

99percentatheism wrote: I cannot do what you require because it would entail referencing and providing web-based material that would get me banned. All I can do is offer a counter position to the incessant pro homosexuality positions and propaganda of gay culture and the gay agenda, as it attacks The Church and that I encounter it here.

And, having encountered so many gay pride proponents, I do not at all believe that there is even one pro homosexuality adherent here that will be persuaded to leave their ideology and the choices they have grasped so firmly. I am not here to evangelize homosexuals and their legion of supporters. I am here to contend for the faith delivered only once to the saints. And I am confident that honesty, logic and the work done by the Apostles support the positions I provide.
1. I have a hard time imagining 'web-based material' that would get you banned if you cited it, unless it clearly violated the rules of this forum. The rules do not prohibit scientific or other evidence; they merely prohibit personal attacks and uncivil discourse.

2. Most of the debaters here who oppose your views on this subject are not 'pro homosexuality.' They are 'pro humanity.' They are 'pro human rights, fairness, and equality.'

I have no more interest in promoting homosexuality than I have in promoting the Tea Party. But I have to concede that altho' I am a member of neither of these groups, I have to agree that individuals of both groups have the same rights that I have.

In terms of the acceptance by Christianity of those who have had a same sex attraction virtually from birth and have no interest in sexual relations with members of the opposite sex, I find the arguments against such acceptance to mirror those antiquated and debunked notions of racism promoted by the Dake Bible and 'The Negro Beast.'
Image
Image

99percentatheism
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3083
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:49 am

Post #473

Post by 99percentatheism »

Danmark wrote:
99percentatheism wrote: I cannot do what you require because it would entail referencing and providing web-based material that would get me banned. All I can do is offer a counter position to the incessant pro homosexuality positions and propaganda of gay culture and the gay agenda, as it attacks The Church and that I encounter it here.

And, having encountered so many gay pride proponents, I do not at all believe that there is even one pro homosexuality adherent here that will be persuaded to leave their ideology and the choices they have grasped so firmly. I am not here to evangelize homosexuals and their legion of supporters. I am here to contend for the faith delivered only once to the saints. And I am confident that honesty, logic and the work done by the Apostles support the positions I provide.
1. I have a hard time imagining 'web-based material' that would get you banned if you cited it, unless it clearly violated the rules of this forum. The rules do not prohibit scientific or other evidence; they merely prohibit personal attacks and uncivil discourse.

2. Most of the debaters here who oppose your views on this subject are not 'pro homosexuality.' They are 'pro humanity.' They are 'pro human rights, fairness, and equality.'

I have no more interest in promoting homosexuality than I have in promoting the Tea Party. But I have to concede that altho' I am a member of neither of these groups, I have to agree that individuals of both groups have the same rights that I have.

In terms of the acceptance by Christianity of those who have had a same sex attraction virtually from birth and have no interest in sexual relations with members of the opposite sex, I find the arguments against such acceptance to mirror those antiquated and debunked notions of racism promoted by the Dake Bible and 'The Negro Beast.'
Your personal opinion of me is duly noted. Your personal opinion of homosexuals and homosexuality is duly noted. "Dake" had opinions too of a theological nature. His looks to dovetail into Darwinism quite well. You have read The Descent Of Man? How is his religious view any different than that of the purveyors of the gay pride agenda trying desperately to ply their trade in Christian theology? Neither Dake's theology or that of gay pride can find support from the New Testament.

Unless of course you can somehow supply what has never been found? That being direct and open support for "gay sex" and "gay marriage" in the Bible?

It is not my position that is contradicted by scripture. But Dake and the gay agenda? Yup.

User avatar
Deidre32
Student
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:41 am
Location: Somewhere else...

Post #474

Post by Deidre32 »

There is no 'gay agenda.' That's a fallacy concocted by religious groups. Is there a heterosexual agenda too?

Homosexuals wish to receive equal civil rights, as heterosexuals. Nothing more or less. That's not an agenda. lol
Every silver lining, has a cloud.

99percentatheism
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3083
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:49 am

Post #475

Post by 99percentatheism »

Deidre32 wrote: There is no 'gay agenda.' That's a fallacy concocted by religious groups. Is there a heterosexual agenda too?

Homosexuals wish to receive equal civil rights, as heterosexuals. Nothing more or less. That's not an agenda.l
Not according to the English language or reality: agenda

a list of things to be considered or done

: a plan or goal that guides someone's behavior and that is often kept secret

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Post #476

Post by Danmark »

99percentatheism wrote:
Deidre32 wrote: There is no 'gay agenda.' That's a fallacy concocted by religious groups. Is there a heterosexual agenda too?

Homosexuals wish to receive equal civil rights, as heterosexuals. Nothing more or less. That's not an agenda.l
Not according to the English language or reality: agenda

a list of things to be considered or done

: a plan or goal that guides someone's behavior and that is often kept secret
You've refuted your own argument by defining 'agenda' as "someone's" behavior that is often kept secret. It is no secret that individuals work to achieve civil rights when there is an attempt by groups to deprive them. This is an example of the error of your thinking, mistaking individual efforts for some mass agenda and conspiracy. Your error is compounded by talking as if various classifications individuals can be grouped under represent some unified, homogeneous whole. For example some gays are in denial or hiding their feelings due to the hatred and discrimination they face from some.

Do you think there is a "black agenda?" Is there a "white agenda?" Do all Christians have the same "agenda?" I suppose they do IF you define 'Christian' narrowly enough. It appears to me that some 'Christians' define the term so narrowly they constitute the only member of the 'group.'

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Post #477

Post by dianaiad »

Deidre32 wrote: There is no 'gay agenda.' That's a fallacy concocted by religious groups. Is there a heterosexual agenda too?

Homosexuals wish to receive equal civil rights, as heterosexuals. Nothing more or less. That's not an agenda. lol
Gay couples had equal rights in California before gay marriage was made legal. Indeed, the right to use the word 'married' did not add a single thing to the government issued civil rights that they already had.

The ONLY thing that the right to use 'married' gave them was the right to force religious and cultural approval for their relationships.

...............and the government has no business dealing in religious and cultural ideas, only civil ones.

Now I, for one, think that they should be able to marry as they wish, and that all of 'em, in contractual relationships, should have exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples have in theirs.

But 'marriage,' as long as it is a religious institution (and it very much is...and has been a lot longer than governments have been around) then AS a religious institution, the government should stay the heck out of it.

Period.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Post #478

Post by Danmark »

dianaiad wrote:
Deidre32 wrote: There is no 'gay agenda.' That's a fallacy concocted by religious groups. Is there a heterosexual agenda too?

Homosexuals wish to receive equal civil rights, as heterosexuals. Nothing more or less. That's not an agenda. lol
Gay couples had equal rights in California before gay marriage was made legal. Indeed, the right to use the word 'married' did not add a single thing to the government issued civil rights that they already had.

The ONLY thing that the right to use 'married' gave them was the right to force religious and cultural approval for their relationships.

...............and the government has no business dealing in religious and cultural ideas, only civil ones.

Now I, for one, think that they should be able to marry as they wish, and that all of 'em, in contractual relationships, should have exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples have in theirs.

But 'marriage,' as long as it is a religious institution (and it very much is...and has been a lot longer than governments have been around) then AS a religious institution, the government should stay the heck out of it.

Period.
As you have pointed out, "marriage" gives certain rights under the law, mainly financial advantages.* Therefore without 'gay marriage' gays do NOT share equal rights. "Marriage" is not strictly a religious concept. I fully agree that the gov'mint should stay out of the 'religious marriage' procedure. But as long as marriage grants rights for insurance, tax, or benefits purposes, it is a denial of equal rights to insist that gays may not marry.

_________________
* http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-o ... ed-couples

User avatar
Deidre32
Student
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:41 am
Location: Somewhere else...

Post #479

Post by Deidre32 »

[Replying to post 473 by dianaiad]

Religion didn't invent marriage. Marriage is a legal contract, and religion hijacked it, like it does everything else, in order to put its silly spin on it. 'GOD' said one man and one woman. God frowns on divorce, bla bla bla.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...CHRISTIANS are currently the ones getting divorced the most in the U.S. They have the highest divorce rate.

Those inconvenient truths keep popping up. lol

If you want to have a religious ceremony to celebrate your legal marital contract, great. But, it actually was 'invented' by Pagans. Not religious-folk. Most likely to ensure stability for communities and children. The 'God factor' came many moons later.

User avatar
Deidre32
Student
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:41 am
Location: Somewhere else...

Post #480

Post by Deidre32 »

[Replying to post 474 by Danmark]


when in doubt, I plan to default to whatever Danmark has to say on any given topic. lol

8-)
:whistle:

Post Reply