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 #491

Post by 99percentatheism »

Clownboat
99percentatheism wrote:
Wordleymaster1 wrote: [Replying to post 473 by dianaiad]
the government should stay the heck out of it.
Amen. Though that's only going to happen in fantasy land - the government is too involved in it now. #-o But the blame for that goes to the religious people anyway as far as I'm concerned. It's a case of having your cake and eating it too.
It's weird to me though - why the interest in the WORD and not the DEED. I suppose it's a cultural thing really - religious people want their word because they think it's THEIR word and others want to be equal when in fact we're not all equal (I'm far better than most people :eyebrow: ).
When it comes to legalities though, we should all be equal in as much of our personal psyche, no matter what it's 'called' or what one group lays claim to it over another.
I wonder though, why are the religions people so against using the word 'marriage' with gay people? Doesn't it speak to a more fundamental hate and fear of gay people than simply protecting the word itself?
Religious people or "Bible-affirming Christians?" There are many religious people that condone, support, encourage and promote homosexuality.

Why do homosexuals want to force others to affirm and celebrate gay behavior? Is it because they "hate" anyone that doesn't?
Furthermore, why do woman want to force others to affirm and celebrate equal rights? Is it because they "hate" anyone that doesn't?
If women demanded that they now be called the husband and the men now be called the wife because of whatever whim of pop (secular) culture, and wanted to force celebrating their new theology, would it be called hate, bigotry, feminismaphobic to oppose that attack on Christian truth?
Why do African Americans want to force others to affirm and celebrate that they are equals? Is it because they "hate" anyone that doesn't?
There is a huge difference between being a Black person born wherever they are born (some blacks are NOT Africans) and same gender sexual behavior and wanting to redefine Christian marriage and force Christians to affirm that.
All this forcing being done to me by woman and African Americans. Rally the troops, we must fight the enemy and their agendas!
The very term "African-American, hyphen and all, is part of an agenda is it not? Are there African-Italians? African-Belgians? African-Swedes? African-Navajos?"

I do appreciate the validation of my point though.
Your "cry" is no different IMO,
And my opinion IMO countered yours effectively.
. . . you just don't realize it because you interpret a holy book in a way to suite "your agenda" and thus feel justified with your unequal treatment of our fellow humans.
IMO . . . How is your direct insult to me not a violation of the rules here? Why do so many people feel so comfortable addressing me directly in thread after thread instead of addressing positions and points?

Why doesn't anyone report these direct and uncivil insults addressed directly at me?

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

Post #492

Post by 99percentatheism »

Clownboat
99percentatheism wrote: 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.
The criminal courts system frowns on divorce, or rather "children born out of wedlock." Since I have visited and worked with hundreds of "people in the system," the massive majority come from "broken homes."
This has zero to do with what you quoted. Marriage is still a legal contract hijacked by religion.
Hijacked? We'll see if that label fits. People mutually mating does have a long and current non and anti Christian reality. But if that makes you feel good asserting that OK. But, no matter your feelings, "Christian marriage" is man and woman/husband and wife." And that fact is not homophobioc, bigoted, hateful or any other negative charge made against that fact. Your ancient history doesn't alter facts.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...CHRISTIANS are currently the ones getting divorced the most in the U.S. They have the highest divorce rate.
How many "Christians" are having "pre-marital sex?" And what if we compare every act of sex to "being married?" Like you show, that IS history. Then what happens to the percentages between the godless or the Believers? A purity, or Promise ring? to the secularist (or Pagan, as you show) is laughable for a reason. How many children are "born out of wedlock?" but are really the product of the pagan concept of "marriage" that predates Christian and Jewish histiry? Just history repeating itself huh? Now let's look up those percentages again shall we?
Once again, it's as if you are responding to the wrong post. Christians are still currently the once getting divorced the most in the US. Your rant seems to make no sense.


Using the phrase "your rant" is uncivil. But I notice with interest that these kinds of insults directed at em are never reported. My rant makes 100% sense using your historic perspective on marriage before and after religion adopted it. If we are to use your definition, which I did, it makes non and anti Christians divorce at rates that dwarf the Christians endlessly.
Those inconvenient truths keep popping up. lol
The horrors of licentiousness are nothing to lol about.
Either is the holocaust, but so what. What is your point?
Yours.

Couples that "unite" break uo with horrific consequences to society. I mean, what was "marriage" called long, long, long before religion "hijacked" it? It was two opposite gender individuals "mating" was it not? Even in pagan times?

Exactly how Jesus uses the analogy huh? He even goes back long, long, long before religion hit the market.
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.
So then also was fatherless children "invented" by pagans. So we can put things into their proper historical context and definition. Now we can place blame for the crisis in society to the proper worldviews and actions. Not only fatherless households and that result of filing our dropout rates and criminal courts, but also the continued use of women by men for pleasure with no accountability.
This rant also doesn't seem to make sense, but at least you are agreeing that marriage is not a religious concept.
Man I love history forgotten and rediscovered as a guide to the present. Hardly ever disappoints.
You need to read up on equal rights and civil rights then.
Why? I believe you and your history of what a marriage was before "religion hijacked it." Seems history is being repeated over and over and over and over again by so many "pagans." So, since every other "outside of marriage sexual sin is not "accepted" in mainstream Christianity and is still sin and sinning, and your history about pre-religion marriage doesn't alter Christian truth, the answer to the OP is decidedly NO.

We should always try to address the OP.

Wordleymaster1
Apprentice
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014 6:21 am

Post #493

Post by Wordleymaster1 »

[Replying to post 487 by 99percentatheism]
wanting to redefine Christian marriage and force Christians to affirm that.
The Christian individual makes ia marriage 'Christian'. In other words, a standard marriage is NOT a Christian marriage - it's just a marriage. In general, no one is FORCING any Christian marriage to be anything. No one is forcing any marriage to 'be' anything.
People are only saying 'if you can have the legal marriage rights I should be able to as well'.
Nothing else.
Don't get so hung up on trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill here.
Christianity isn't under 'attack' like it appears you think. More gay people don't care what Christians think of their marriage. They simply want the same legal rights to live their lives with their own God given free will as they see fit.
Nothing else.
Don't let the fringe groups be your guide through this confusing situation any longer.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Post #494

Post by Elijah John »

Wordleymaster1 wrote: .... Though, Christians don't seem to be too honest about it many times - they like to hide behind their LEGALLY protected religion to spout their hate and disdain. Kinda' cowardly though smart to me at least. O:)


Moderator Comment

A difference of politican and religious opinion regarding issues of gay rights is not necessarily "to spout their hate and distain" nor is it fair to call them "cowardly"..please avoid such sweeping characterizations.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 8142
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 310 times

Post #495

Post by Clownboat »

IMO . . . How is your direct insult to me not a violation of the rules here? Why do so many people feel so comfortable addressing me directly in thread after thread instead of addressing positions and points?

Why doesn't anyone report these direct and uncivil insults addressed directly at me?
Let's see if I owe you an apology shall we?
Clownboat wrote:you just don't realize it because you interpret a holy book in a way to suite "your agenda" and thus feel justified with your unequal treatment of our fellow humans.
Do you or do you not get your stance on gay marriage etc... from a holy book that you are interpreting?
Do you or do you not feel justified for the way you treat homosexuals due to said holy book?
Do you or do you not want homosexuals to be "married", just like heterosexuals?

I think we all know the answers on these accounts and therefore I do not owe you any sort of apology. Feel free to correct me on your source if it's not the Bible though.

It is funny to watch you try to play the victim card. Is there a reason you did not report the post, because I have an assumption?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

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

Post #496

Post by Danmark »

99percentatheism wrote:
Why do homosexuals want to force others to affirm and celebrate gay behavior? Is it because they "hate" anyone that doesn't?
This is an inaccurate statement of facts. In court, the question would warrant a sustained objection for "Stating facts not in evidence." This is not a courtroom. I only use the phrase as illustrative.

Most homosexuals [or at least some, in contrast to your broad statement] have no desire to force anyone to 'celebrate gay behavior.'*

They merely want to have the same rights as others; to marry, to have their privacy respected, to practice their own religion with dignity, to attend funerals for their loved ones without having the site surrounded by pickets with signs proclaiming "GOD HATES FAGS."
____________________
*Unless you have evidence that all 'homosexuals' want this, shouldn't you withdraw your remark? Likewise unless you have evidence that even 'most homosexuals' want to 'force' you to 'celebrate' their private 'activity' should you not announce you are withdrawing that statement?

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

Post #497

Post by dianaiad »

Clownboat wrote:
IMO . . . How is your direct insult to me not a violation of the rules here? Why do so many people feel so comfortable addressing me directly in thread after thread instead of addressing positions and points?

Why doesn't anyone report these direct and uncivil insults addressed directly at me?
Let's see if I owe you an apology shall we?
Clownboat wrote:you just don't realize it because you interpret a holy book in a way to suite "your agenda" and thus feel justified with your unequal treatment of our fellow humans.
Do you or do you not get your stance on gay marriage etc... from a holy book that you are interpreting?
Do you or do you not feel justified for the way you treat homosexuals due to said holy book?
Do you or do you not want homosexuals to be "married", just like heterosexuals?

I think we all know the answers on these accounts and therefore I do not owe you any sort of apology. Feel free to correct me on your source if it's not the Bible though.

It is funny to watch you try to play the victim card. Is there a reason you did not report the post, because I have an assumption?
:warning: Moderator Warning


It does not matter if you perceive personal remarks to be true. It does not matter if you believe that you can prove personal accusations to be true. The rules of the forum are that you address the substance of a post, not the author of it. Anything else is simply mudslinging and does not advance the conversation.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #498

Post by Divine Insight »

99percentatheism wrote: Why do homosexuals want to force others to affirm and celebrate gay behavior? Is it because they "hate" anyone that doesn't?
I think this issue is far more complex than you are willing to admit.

To begin with many gays may not even want to be "Christians'. They couldn't care less about Christianity. What they want is a right to marry under secular law. It doesn't really need to have anything at all to do with Christianity or the Bible.

After all, aren't Muslims allowed to marry in the USA? They aren't Christians. So they clearly aren't being married in the eyes of Christianity or the Christian God.

What about atheists? Are atheists allowed to get married in the USA? Is so, what does that have to do with the Bible or the Christian God.

Jews get married. Wiccan's get married. And so on.

There is no recognized connection between "marriage" and Christianity in the secular laws of the USA.

So really the fact that gays want to be married in the USA has nothing at all to do with Christianity.

Of course, if they want to be married in a Christian Church that's an entirely different story. However, if gays want to be married in a Christian Church then surely it can only be because those particular gays consider themselves to also be Christians.

This now comes to asking you, "Who are you to say who is a Christian and who is not?"

If you disagree with a gay Christian, then you are arguing with another Christian. If they interpret the Bible differently from you so what? So do many other Christian denominations. There's nothing new there.

Who are you to tell another Christian how they must interpret the Bible? :-k

This is especially true if you are a Protestant. Protestantism originated precisely because the Protestants protested against the authority of the Catholic Church and it's Pope to interpret the Bible for other people. So ironically if you are a Protestant then you are against your own denomination by demanding how other people need to interpret the Bible. You are basically demanding to be the Pope of Protestantism.

Protestants are supposed to allow the Holy Spirit to guide each individual as they read the scriptures. If gay Christians don't see any problem with same gender consummated love, then that's their feedback from the Holy Spirit. Who are you to say they are wrong?

For you to demand that they accept your interpretation of scriptures is no different from you demanding to be the POPE.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 8142
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 310 times

Post #499

Post by Clownboat »

Hijacked? We'll see if that label fits. People mutually mating does have a long and current non and anti Christian reality. But if that makes you feel good asserting that OK. But, no matter your feelings, "Christian marriage" is man and woman/husband and wife." And that fact is not homophobioc, bigoted, hateful or any other negative charge made against that fact. Your ancient history doesn't alter facts.
Enough of this. Do you believe that Christianity invented marriage or not? Yes or no?
If yes, do you have any evidence?
If no, then the statement:
This has zero to do with what you quoted. Marriage is still a legal contract hijacked by religion.
is correct and you failed to refute a very important point.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...CHRISTIANS are currently the ones getting divorced the most in the U.S. They have the highest divorce rate.
How many "Christians" are having "pre-marital sex?" And what if we compare every act of sex to "being married?" Like you show, that IS history. Then what happens to the percentages between the godless or the Believers? A purity, or Promise ring? to the secularist (or Pagan, as you show) is laughable for a reason. How many children are "born out of wedlock?" but are really the product of the pagan concept of "marriage" that predates Christian and Jewish history? Just history repeating itself huh? Now let's look up those percentages again shall we?
Once again, it's as if you are responding to the wrong post. Christians are still currently the ones getting divorced the most in the US. Your rant seems to make no sense.

Using the phrase "your rant" is uncivil. But I notice with interest that these kinds of insults directed at em are never reported. My rant makes 100% sense using your historic perspective on marriage before and after religion adopted it. If we are to use your definition, which I did, it makes non and anti Christians divorce at rates that dwarf the Christians endlessly.
Rant is descriptive, not uncivil, especially in the way I used it. As to the rest, I don't recall supplying you with a description for marriage, just a bit of history on it.
Couples that "unite" break uo with horrific consequences to society. I mean, what was "marriage" called long, long, long before religion "hijacked" it? It was two opposite gender individuals "mating" was it not? Even in pagan times?
What was it called? That is a nonsensical question and you should know that. What time period and what culture are you asking about? Be specific and perhaps we can determine what it was called. No matter what it was called though does not take away from the fact that it predates Christianity.
You need to read up on equal rights and civil rights then.
Why?

Because IMO, your view towards homosexuals will soon be viewed like those that use to think women and non white races were not their equals.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 8142
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 310 times

Post #500

Post by Clownboat »

99% wrote:Why do homosexuals want to force others to affirm and celebrate gay behavior? Is it because they "hate" anyone that doesn't?
Clownboat wrote:Why do woman want to force others to affirm and celebrate equal rights? Is it because they "hate" anyone that doesn't?
I want the readers to be clear that I am addressing a verbatim quote that 99% made. I correlated his quote with the woman's rights movement. And then offered my opinion as to why, but unfortunately that part was not included in my post that was moderated.

My point was addressing his statement about homosexuals, not him personally. What I said in full context which was left out of the moderation was:
Your "cry" is no different IMO, you just don't realize it because you interpret a holy book in a way to suite "your agenda" and thus feel justified with your unequal treatment of our fellow humans.
As you can see, I am addressing his "cry" about homosexuals wanting to force others to affirm and celebrate gay behavior. I address his "cry" by comparing it to woman's rights.

I make this clarification because I was quoted out of context and that out of context quote got moderated.
Leave, "your cry is no different IMO" out does make it appear that I am only addressing 99%, but it needs to remain since it was originally there.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

Post Reply