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 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."

[connermt]

[Replying to post 344 by 99percentatheism]
Curious 99:
While you probably won't answer as asked, I'll ask it anyway:
1) do you want gay people in your religion if it weren't 'a sin' (according to you)?
2) assuming being gay is a sin however you wish to define it, what's the difference between a gay person and any other sinner in regards to entering into your church & religion? And why is it different?

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 345 by KCKID]

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.

Then celebrating homosexuality in "gay affirming" denominations should have ended the issue for you shouldn't it?

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 with them are thousands and thousands of other scriptures that also so not say one thing in any way positive about homosexuality as we understand it today. Nor in the day in which they were written as well.

And, though they are there they just don't mean what you and the majority of Christians think they mean.

And an "average Joe" is going to take power and authority over plain old average Christian theologians that hold to the fact that homosexuality is inappropriate behavior throughout the Bible? Think about that man.

However, as I've always maintained, I'm open to believing differently if such evidence presents itself.

How so? You have absolutely declared you pro homosexuality and pro gay positions as absolute. I mean, you and I have been at this for a very long time and you can't pretend to be anything but pro homosexuality.

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.

Well if evidence won't convince you then nothing else will. There is no such thing as same gender marriage anywhere in the Bible and there is no positive affirmation of gay anything anywhere in the Bible. You seem now to basing your entire support for homosexuality and the gay pride movement on some new theology developed since the 60's sexual revolution that Leviticus is about idolatrous gay sex.

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.

Out of nowhere? It is in a list of prohibited behaviors and actions. Sheeeesh.

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.

Then every other behavior and action denounced and defined in your Leviticus texts as bad have to be connected to Molech worship too. And it is clear from scripture that behaviors and actions that go along with Molech worship are inappropriate fro the Israelites AND foreigners too.

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.[/quote]

Blame them for what? The list is well written and understandable even for today's world.

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??

Leviticus just shows the opposition to homosexuality in the Bible. As you know well, I don't hang my entire argument on Leviticus. Not even slightly. And I am no bashing gays or anyone else by holding to the truth that homosexual sex acts are inappropriate for Christians. That "Jesus never mentioned anything about homosexuality or homosexuals" supports the solid position that homosexuality is inappropriate behavior, becuase jesus DID say something about marriage and it was exactly the way God "in the beginning" designed it. The very consistent nature of sexuality and marriage as between only a man and a woman throughout the entire Bible is witness against the gay pride movement and gay theology moving into The Church and preaching acceptance of something Jesus never said a word about affirming.

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.?

Better belief? Not believing in Jesus seems to bring anything goes to a person doesn't it? Sheesh, Jesus puts limits on our behaviors. How is that "better" than being able to be your own ultimate authority and being able to justify anything you do?

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?

Obviously I have to be careful how I answer the stupidity aspect of your question and why I contend for the faith the way I do. I'd batter pass on this one.

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.

Seriously you believe that? Man I am no prude. I know the depravity of "modern man" (from my own perspective) and what goes on in the world today seems far worse that what the ancients did precisely because we DO KNOW right from wrong.

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.

Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah. You gotta ask yourself: Why has homosexuality been driven and/or kept into the closet for 5000-years? Pandora's Box maybe? What happens throughout the ages that homosexuality has been rejected over and over and over and over again? Could it be that we are just repeating a history we have purposely forgotten?

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.*

Mr. KCKID, you know very well that I have been studying this subject for a very long time. Just produce one piece of scripture that would show ANY support for the modern LGBT (and all the other letters) Community. Think about it? Read the Bible someday and picture the gay pride movement as you are reading it and see if incompatibility in the comparison will jump off the pages?

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.

Please excuse me but I highly doubt that. Your views come straight from the liberal/gay theology playbook, and the new kid on the block Matthew Vines shows that my trepidation has merit. Otherwise I think you would have agreed that "gay denominations" ends the debate. The MCC is the place for homosexuals to celebrate and affirm gay sex until the end of the age. You seem to be forgetting that we have discussed this all many times.

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.

The "clobber passages?" To demean and dehumanize "gay people?" That sounds like propaganda to me. Like gay activism and gay pride demands. Scriptures were not written by me or any other NON gay affirming Christian. And the scriptures no where describe appropriate homosexuality or "affirming" of same gender marriage. The exact opposite is the case. And of course Jesus never mentions a word abut homosexuals or homosexuality. Not one word.

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 . . .

Proving of course that there is a "gay agenda." And of course as juxtaposed to the Christian agenda as in completely different worlds and worldviews. But like I always say, people have the right to invent any new religion or lifestyle they so choose.

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 . . .?

Really" Adultery is still a sin in every Christian denomination I have ever been in. And, the position that adulterers must repent of their sexual sin of adultery has never once been defined as hate speech. Not once. Have you ever read Psalm 51? Written by one of the most famous adulterers of all time. And I really mean ALL TIME.

* 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.

Lascivious licentiousness. Sounds like idolatry is still widely practiced. Even a civil right. And of course why not a sexual orientation in every sense of the phrase?

[color]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?

Pride? Pride? PRIDE?

Isn't an idol something that makes people follow it? And certain behaviors attached to that idol?

[99percentatheism]

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.

You are describing Muslims. Ancient and 21st century.

Do you have any evidence of this?

By definition of 'extremist' and their actions

Huh?

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.

So are you claiming that you DO know what kind of behavior defines who a Christian is?

"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've never doubted your views. Not even once.

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.

1) Yes I do.

2) Free will. You nailed it. And with it comes consequences and accountability. Per Jesus. The One that defined how to judge others.

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.

Hate and fear demand civil rights today. And since I became a Christian from being an anti-Christian, I have complete confidence in the absence of fear and hate of a Christian life lived well.

That's laughable.

Christiainity is, indeed, laughable.

Many expressions of it yes agreed. But after the laughter comes tears for the unrepentant.

The need to defend such a condition is laughable as well.

Then what should we call new inventions that are calling themselves a form of Christianity but clearly have no scripture to support their newly invented views and demands? It certainly isn't laughable really. Not according to scriptures right?

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.

From a certain kind of perspective I'm sure that is the picture one gets from that vantage place. But I don't see one word from Jesus or by the writers of the NT that agrees with your assessment. But like I consistently write, you are entitled to your opinion.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 345 by KCKID]


Then celebrating homosexuality in "gay affirming" denominations should have ended the issue for you shouldn't it?

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 with them are thousands and thousands of other scriptures that also so not say one thing in any way positive about homosexuality as we understand it today. Nor in the day in which they were written as well. [sic]

[emphasis applied]
If you are you claiming as an argument that there are "thousands and thousands" of scriptural references that do not specifically praise homosexuality, how is that an argument against it? There are "thousands and thousands" of scriptures that do not advocate flag waving or the baking of apple pies, but those activities are not sins, are they?

[99percentatheism]

Danmark

[Replying to post 345 by KCKID]


Then celebrating homosexuality in "gay affirming" denominations should have ended the issue for you shouldn't it?

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 with them are thousands and thousands of other scriptures that also so not say one thing in any way positive about homosexuality as we understand it today. Nor in the day in which they were written as well.

[emphasis applied]
If you are you claiming as an argument that there are "thousands and thousands" of scriptural references that do not specifically praise homosexuality, how is that an argument against it?

Foundation, honesty, reality. Gay theology bases its support from silence. The Bible is not silent on gay sex acts at all. And there is not one that affirms it or celebrates it.

There are "thousands and thousands" of scriptures that do not advocate flag waving or the baking of apple pies, but those activities are not sins, are they?

But homosexuality IS mentioned as a sin. And one that a Christian has repented of:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you;

Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

- Paul, 1 Corinthians

[Haven]

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

I know this was pointed out before, but the word translated "homosexuals" in the 1985 NIV (the 2011 NIV has the supposedly 'less offensive' (ha!) "practicing homosexuals") is not translated as such in other versions of the Bible (the KJV has "abusers of themselves with mankind") and comes from a Greek word (arsenokoitai) of indeterminate meaning. Most likely, this term referred to pagan ritual prostitutes, not gay men.

[99percentatheism]

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

I know this was pointed out before, but the word translated "homosexuals" in the 1985 NIV (the 2011 NIV has the supposedly 'less offensive' (ha!) "practicing homosexuals") is not translated as such in other versions of the Bible (the KJV has "abusers of themselves with mankind") and comes from a Greek word (arsenokoitai) of indeterminate meaning. Most likely, this term referred to pagan ritual prostitutes, not gay men.

Is there even a "Gay Christian" sermon anywhere, preached by a homosexuality supporting "gay affirming reverend or pastor" on Gospel based gay sex? Probably not since in the Gospel marriage is man and woman/husband and wife per none other than Jesus.

http://www.equip.org/articles/is-arseno ... an-books-4

Proposition 1. To broaden the word arsenokoitai to include exploitive heterosexual intercourse appears unlikely in view of the unqualified nature of the Levitical prohibitions.16

Proposition 2. In every instance in which the arsenokoit word group occurs in a context that offers clues as to its meaning (i.e., beyond mere inclusion in a vice list), it denotes homosexual intercourse.17

Proposition 3. The term arsenokoitai itself indicates an inclusive sense: all men who play the active role in homosexual intercourse. Had Paul intended to single out pederasts he could have used the technical term paiderastïs.18

Proposition 4. The meaning that Paul gave to arsenokoitai has to be unpacked in light of Romans1:24-27. When Paul speaks of the sexual intercourse of “males with males� (arsenes en arsenes) in v.27, he obviously has in mind arsenokoitai.19
Based on these propositions and others he explores, Gagnon boldly states that “others would have us believe that it is an open question whether arsenokoitai in Paul’s mind would have applied to all forms of same-sex intercourse, including the kinds of non-exploitative forms allegedly manifested in our contemporary context,� but “this dubious hope has to be maintained in the face of many additional obstacles.�20 Gagnon concludes that 1Corinthians6:9 confirms that Paul’s rejection of homosexual conduct is just as applicable for believers as for unbelievers and that it is self-evident, then, that the combination of terms, malakoi and arsenokoitai, are correctly understood in our contemporary context when they are applied to every conceivable type of same-sex intercourse.

Having more closely documented the particular use of the word arsenokoitai and its consistent witness in the NT, we have discovered that homosexual sin in 1Corinthians6:9-10 isn’t as culturally relevant as many who support the pro-homosexual agenda to normalize aberrant sexual behavior would have us believe.

- C. Wayne Mayhall

[Haven]

I'll address the rest of your post tomorrow, as it requires an in-depth response. I just wanted to say this:

�20 Gagnon concludes that 1Corinthians6:9 confirms that Paul’s rejection of homosexual conduct is just as applicable for believers as for unbelievers

The writings of Paul in no way have any applicability or relevance to non-Christians. Paul was a Christian writer and 1 Corinthians is a Christian sacred writing that only applies to those Christians who choose to follow it. It has absolutely zero relevance to any non-Christian.

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 348 by 99percentatheism]

It's my guess, 99percent, that if I could summon up Jesus Christ Himself to state to you and the rest of the Christian world, "Homosexuality as referred to in scripture is idolatry related and not aimed at people personally," you, and probably they, would still choose not to believe it. As my dear, departed mother used to say, "There are none so blind as those who don't want to see." So, since this appears to be the case in this case I can't go a whole lot further on this topic with you, 99percent.

Let me try this.

You've alluded to Matthew Vines several times, 99percent, as though this young man is nothing more than a 'deviant heterosexual', i.e. a heterosexual male who is pretending to be something he's not for no other reason than to irritate Christians. IS this what you're implying? If not, then what ARE you implying? I only learned of Matthew Vines' existence a few months ago. And, only then, through a few YouTube videos. From what I've seen and heard of Mr. Vines he comes across, to me anyway, as neither an 'abomination' nor someone with a mental condition. On the contrary, he comes across as a warm, caring and intelligent human being. He appears to be exactly who he claims to be, i.e. a person with a sexual orientation toward those of the same gender. Now, according to you, is this all a sham on his part? Is Matthew, in actuality. a straight man with a sinister scheme in mind to bring down Christianity? Is this all a part of that devious 'gay agenda' that you often speak of?

Please respond to these questions because it's important to know what your mindset is on this issue . . .apart from scripture.

To continue. You refer to yourself as a Christian and yet you go out of your way - as do many Christians - to dig up texts from an ancient book for no other reason than to demean and to dehumanize the Matthew Vines of this world. NOWHERE in the Bible are you are required to do this. Are you not bothered by at least a tinge of conscience that its such examples of fanaticism for a 'holy book' (coupled with personal reasons for gay disapproval) by alleged 'followers of Christ' that has led many a young gay person to suicide?

If you can't admit, at least from a logical standpoint as well as from overwhelming scientific support , that people are 'hardwired' to be gay or straight ...or, if you're unable to think for yourself without requiring the words from an ancient book to do your thinking for you AND possibly getting it wrong in the process, then you are in a sorry state indeed ...despite any theological know-how you may claim to possess! I also have a certain amount of theological credentials myself, even though I am basically an average Joe with absolutely no so-called 'gay movement' connections.

Those half-dozen so-called 'anti-gay' scriptures that you use as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality are shrouded with ambiguity. And, since these scriptures are ambiguous, then why would you not err on the side of 'positive' toward your gay brothers and sisters rather than opting for the negative approach? Will "God" really condemn those to 'eternal torment' who, though they may have interpreted scripture incorrectly, approached the topic from a loving perspective rather than from a hateful one? Do you really believe this? The only answer I can come up with, and I've stated this before, is that the Bible has nothing to do with your aversion to homosexuality. In fact. I would lay that charge against most anti-gay Christians!

That said, if your 'holy book' affects you in such a way as to drive you toward hating those whose only 'sin' is that they are sexually hardwired differently to you then close up this evil book with a loud thump and toss it on to the highest shelf because that's where it belongs!

[connermt]

[Replying to post 349 by 99percentatheism]

You are describing Muslims. Ancient and 21st century.

Among others. There are extremists in almost all (if not all) camps. We would do good to remember christian acts of violence throughout history as well.

So are you claiming that you DO know what kind of behavior defines who a Christian is?

Yes. It's rather simple, really.

1) Yes I do.

It seems you're confused as that quote is not an answer/response for the indicated statement of " 1) it's not your place to deceide one's religious belief "

2) Free will. You nailed it. And with it comes consequences and accountability. Per Jesus. The One that defined how to judge others.

Again, confusion seems rampant as this quote isn't an apporpiate literal response to "2) it doesn't matter - christianity is slowly accepting those different than itself. "
Unless you care to enlighten us...?

Hate and fear demand civil rights today.

Confusion again. Hate and fear do no demanding - people do. Though it's interesting that you equate the 'demanding of civil rights' as a negative thing - something religion has no business in. Yet, here we are. Seems religion can't keep its nose out of the business of others when religion itself needs structure and guidance.

But after the laughter comes tears for the unrepentant.

No...usually more laughter

Then what should we call new inventions that are calling themselves a form of Christianity but clearly have no scripture to support their newly invented views and demands?

It doesn't matter as it's none of your business if you don't want to accept it as your own personal belief system based on your free will.

But I don't see one word from Jesus or by the writers of the NT that agrees with your assessment.

One wouldn't expect you to as it flies in the face of what you hold dear.

I noticed you took the time to answer a lot of questions, but 'skipped' these:
Curious 99:
While you probably won't answer as asked, I'll ask it anyway:
1) do you want gay people in your religion if it weren't 'a sin' (according to you)?
2) assuming being gay is a sin however you wish to define it, what's the difference between a gay person and any other sinner in regards to entering into your church & religion? And why is it different?

Are we to accept you don't want to answer it?
Only seeking clarification.