Will gays EVER be accepted by mainstream Christianity?

[KCKID]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Uganda, police raid homes and arrest those they suspect to be gay. Homosexuality is an offence under the penal code. The president, Yoweri Museveni, refuses to pass a bill that seeks to strengthen the punishments for homosexuality to include life imprisonment, but isnt under pressure to do so. Conservative Christian churches, under the auspices of the Uganda Joint Christian Council, refuse to accept homosexuals in spite of more gay-friendly approaches from parent churches abroad. The anti-gay furnace is fanned by American evangelical churches that have made it their mission to free Africa of homosexuality, saying it is alien to African culture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KCKID]

>snip<

I have a consistent history of not giving a rat's gluteals about what non and anti Christians do with their own bodies and their own worldviews. And "I" don't have a problem even with heresy, heretics, apostates, anti-Christians and whomeever or whatever. I have even authored a thread about a gay denomination.

Indeed, quite a popular thread that drew a lot of attention and numbers. But, also a rather unnecessary thread since there are an increasing number of existing Churches that are 'gay-affirming' so no need for a specific 'gay denomination'.

>snip<

It was what I observed of gay culture and the gay community (when I lived and worked within one) and the rise of pride propaganda that I started focusing on the train coming down the tracks at The Church. And that train has slammed into it head on.

You will find throughout history, 99percent - and I'm surprised that you don't appear to know this already - that oppressed people will eventually reach the point where they've had a belly full of oppression and consequently rise up in numbers against their oppressors ...in this case (predominantly) 'The Church'. Once the oppression is combated and people are free to be themselves 'the train coming down the tracks' that you speak of will slow down and eventually stop. You don't seem to realize that it's you and yours that set the train into motion to begin with.

I do not limit anyone's rights to do with their body whatever they want to. In fact "I" never limited anything to do with what has now been defined as gay behavior.

As opposed to 'straight behavior' . . .? What IS 'straight behavior' anyway? Seems to me that 'straight behavior' often involves a great deal of 'unscriptural stuff' that would make 'gay behavior' (whatever negative thing you define that to be) pale by comparison. Do you know that heterosexual porn sites are the most popular sites on the Internet? If you want to target depravity, you could have a field day with 'straight behavior'!

What do I care who Paul defines as reprobates and what they engage in?

Paul was a single man and, perhaps, a virgin ...which is fine, by the way. However, if I wanted counsel on sexual issues I think I would avoid the 'expert advice' from an inexperienced man. What d'ya think?

I just contend for the faith, that gay theology, gay pride and the political propaganda of gay neologism is a true menace to The Church.

As said, 'you and yours' continue to exacerbate this alleged 'situation'. The more you oppress the more resistance you will get. It's only natural.

And the way the authors of New Testament theology liimt what is and what isn't proper behavior and beliefs for those that supposedly are Christians.

Love your neighbor as yourself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. New Testament theology in a nutshell. Case closed.

Think about it, I am harrassed and attacked here personally (and you are addressing me personally in this thread) often on the grounds that I do not behave as a Christian should. And my antagonistic adversaries do not realize that the only basis for their opinions are based on the same New Testament I use. You have no idea the satisfying irony as I watch the judgmentalism pointed towards me in personal attack, after personal attack after personal attack.

I understand that you probably are behaving as a Christian should ...from your own personal perspective. However, it's not working. Many others that also profess Christianity don't behave as you do. You come across as a 'Pharisee' who is more than willing to toss stones at those whose only 'sin' is that they are instinctively gay. Why? What is the real reason for such animosity? People don't respond favorably to this kind of attitude as you've clearly seen. As above, why don't you take the better road of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' ...? Why is this so difficult for you?

The answer to the OP is NO. But why? The answer was already given in the canon of scripture.

You're inventing this. Where did Jesus exclude anyone from His presence? Perhaps Jesus distanced Himself from the Pharisees who He referred to as 'vipers'. Christians with excessive zeal (Pharisaical) with regard to exposing and combating the 'sins' of others need to be careful. They could be shooting themselves in the foot.

I just simply agree that Christians have the right to live their lives as they see fit by the reality of what was written by the authors of scripture.

You mean Paul? Certainly not Jesus or by those that authored his alleged quotes. You need Paul, don't you, 99percent? Without him you would have no case to present. Even with Paul I believe that you've got it backwards. If Paul was against homosexuality as we refer to it today we're not told. He in all probability would not have had a clue about the complexities of human sexuality. What he DID know is that pagan sexual practices were forbidden when it came to worshiping God ...hence those references in his epistles.

And the attack on the authenticity of scripture, the atttack on the theology of proper sexual behavior for Christians and all the other misadventures and off-topic meanness of the attack on orthodoxy and repentant Christians . . . that I endure here in cyber-terabyte-hatred fashion and in real life, will fall on dusty ground for the same reasons given in the faith delivered only once to the saints as described in scripture.

There is no 'attack' on the authenticity of scripture. Questioning the authenticity of the Bible is not an attack. Have you questioned the authenticity of the Bible? If not, why not? There is nothing wrong in one's questioning everything. In fact, this should be encouraged.

And hey, if we continue to be persecuted by refusing to follow new laws invented to force us to comply with secular morality and even wierd new theology replacing Christian truth . . . and we continue to be persecuted for not following false teachings and false teachers, so be it. All that literally proves is that there is a line drawn eternally for the Saints to know on whcih side to stand. And without doubt, that isn't on the side of the world and its ways.

Rest easy. You're not being persecuted. The only thing that appears to be happening that is getting your tights into such a twist (if it is indeed happening) is a previously oppressed people standing up for their rights. And ...good for them!

Notice Jesus was never quoted as saying anything about homosexuality?

Um, that's right . . .and ...?

The answer to the OP, was written long ago. I just agree with it.

Really? There is no text in the Bible I know of that says gays will never be accepted by mainstream Christianity.

[Ooberman]

I just simply agree that Christians have the right to live their lives as they see fit by the reality of what was written by the authors of scripture.

They can, as long as it's within their scripture AND its legal.

You are allowed to practice any religion you want.

And, not that I endorse this, but if your religion was running amok in the streets, then you could also practice that - at least once.

Being of a certain religion doesn't confer special privileges.


You already have Heaven, why not leave Earth to the rest of us?

[ThePainefulTruth]

My question is, why would gays ever want to be accepted into Christianity, or any religion?

[help3434]

[Replying to ThePainefulTruth]

Because they believe it is true?

[KCKID]

My question is, why would gays ever want to be accepted into Christianity, or any religion?

Well, there are gay people who, like their straight counterparts, seek 'religion' for similar and, probably, personal reasons. Perhaps there are some here on this forum who could offer their initial reasons for choosing to 'go Christian' or some other religion. For those gay people who wish to involve themselves in Christianity, as is their entitlement, they should not be barred from Christian meeting places merely because of their innate sexuality. The Christian hero, Jesus, as He is portrayed in scripture, would not be unwelcoming to gay people. Nor should Christians who claim to emulate Jesus be unwelcoming to gay people. Moreover, Christians have no reason, other than mistranslated scriptures, to do so.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 251 by help3434]

If they believe Christianity is true, then they believe homosexuals are damned. Looks like a loose-loose to me.

Well, there are gay people who, like their straight counterparts, seek 'religion' for similar and, probably, personal reasons. Perhaps there are some here on this forum who could offer their initial reasons for choosing to 'go Christian' or some other religion. For those gay people who wish to involve themselves in Christianity, as is their entitlement, they should not be barred from Christian meeting places merely because of their innate sexuality. The Christian hero, Jesus, as He is portrayed in scripture, would not be unwelcoming to gay people. Nor should Christians who claim to emulate Jesus be unwelcoming to gay people. Moreover, Christians have no reason, other than mistranslated scriptures, to do so

.

First, it's a religion's right to accept or reject whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. My (white) family was rejected for membership in a (white) Baptist Church because I (the Father) wasn't a believer, as was their right. Needless to say I didn't shed any tears, but my Christian wife had her eyes opened. Same for any private business, club or organization. The only equal rights anyone has is to equal treatment under the law, and in access to public/government goods and services.

I wouldn't be putting words in Jesus' mouth. He was a devout Jew whose attitudes towards homosexuals then is pretty much what Islam's is to them now. I can't say either way, just sayin'.

I don't believe the reasons for Sodom and Gomorrah were mistranslated, though I have an open mind on the subject. But for the sake of argument, lets just say they were mistranslated, by who? Whenever it was, Judaism and Christianity have been vigorously anti-homosexual since then, making that mistranslation just like all the many others, along with the ones that were original demagoguery--the "Word of God".

But y'all are going about this all the wrong way. Homos- don't make little ready-made followers like Heteros- do. Forget the marriage issue and focus on the money. Play your cards right and within a generation there'll be a gay Pope. Woops, I think my cynical slip is showing.

[99percentatheism]

KCKID

My question is, why would gays ever want to be accepted into Christianity, or any religion?

Well, there are gay people who, like their straight counterparts, seek 'religion' for similar and, probably, personal reasons.

Doesn't it seem more for the normalization and celebration of homosexuality? When looking at this in a historical perspective, planting the gay pride flag in The Church seems the goal more than preaching the Gospel to the lost.

Perhaps there are some here on this forum who could offer their initial reasons for choosing to 'go Christian' or some other religion.

Reality. The Gospel and its connection with the rest of the New Testament seems a direct stand against the world and its ways of anything and everything goes. It seems that Jesus and the rest of the voices in the New Testament, are indicating that there is a change of relationship between God and man. It is a perspective that makes sense.

For those gay people who wish to involve themselves in Christianity, as is their entitlement, they should not be barred from Christian meeting places merely because of their innate sexuality.

"Gay people?" A 21st century neologism shows the nature of some kind of agenda there. There are sins, sinning and sinners and those that repent of sin, sinning and being a sinner. Anyone should be barred if the preach another Gospel. A different Gospel. Or at the very least, they should be respectful of Christian truth and if they can't abide by it, go invent another religion that they feel can justify their new paradigm. For example, there is no such thing as same gender marriage in the New Testament witness. A "Christian marriage" is undeniably man and woman/husband and wife FROM any perspective based ON the New Testament witness. But there are some people that refuse to want to believe that and there are those that want to be part of the historic Christian mission.

The Christian hero, Jesus, as He is portrayed in scripture, would not be unwelcoming to gay people.

"Gay people?" There's that 21st century propaganda tactic being employed where it cannot fit into the preaching of repentance for sins. Why not rename, redefine and relabel adultery too? Fluffy Puppies. Fluffy Puppy People.

FPP.

Instead of committing adultery, they are just Puppy Fluffing. Or, Fluffy Puppy. How very acceptable is that. Who won't "affirm" Puppy Fluffing?

Here's the new fad: "Dude, are you cheating on your wife?"

"What? No, I am just Fluffy Puppy with some other woman."

"Ahhhhhhhh, how cute."

If we are to embrace a world that can simply redefine anything and everything for a new fad and political power, then nothing is truth.

Is the Gospel really bendable and even re-definable to the whim of any person, group, fad or political movement?

Nor should Christians who claim to emulate Jesus be unwelcoming to gay people.

To what point? The inviting in of a different Gospel preached as such? Jesus was clear what to do with "people" that refused the Gospel. It was to be uninvolved with them. Not just unwelcoming.

Jesus made it clear also about the wolf in sheep's clothing. The wheat and the weeds. A false Gospel and the real one. And the kinds of people and groups that would represent them.

Moreover, Christians have no reason, other than mistranslated scriptures, to do so.

Really? Who is mistranslating "Christian marriage" and who isn't it? Etc., etc., etc..

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 254 by 99percentatheism]

Well, there are gay people who, like their straight counterparts, seek 'religion' for similar and, probably, personal reasons.

Doesn't it seem more for the normalization and celebration of homosexuality? When looking at this in a historical perspective, planting the gay pride flag in The Church seems the goal more than preaching the Gospel to the lost.

That was so well put it almost brought me to tears....well....an evil smirk.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 254 by 99percentatheism]

Why do you have "people" in quotation marks? Are you implying that those that reject Christianity are not even people?

[McCulloch]

Instead of committing adultery, they are just Puppy Fluffing. Or, Fluffy Puppy. How very acceptable is that. Who won't "affirm" Puppy Fluffing?

Here's the new fad: "Dude, are you cheating on your wife?"

"What? No, I am just Fluffy Puppy with some other woman."

"Ahhhhhhhh, how cute."

If we are to embrace a world that can simply redefine anything and everything for a new fad and political power, then nothing is truth.

Is the Gospel really bendable and even re-definable to the whim of any person, group, fad or political movement?

[...]

Really? Who is mistranslating "Christian marriage" and who isn't it? Etc., etc., etc..

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Many of those who claim to be Christians are in second (or third) marriages where a divorce for the reason of sexual immorality has not been sought or obtained. According to Jesus, those people are adulterers. If they remain in a sexual relationship with their new spouses, they are unrepentant adulterers. This looks to me like a double standard. The Christian Churches vociferously campaign to stop the influence, acceptance and infiltration of unrepentant sexual sinners if they are homosexual, but, for the most part, allow it to continue even within their midst when the sexual sin is adultery.