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."

[KCKID]

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.

Not only that but, yet again, we have supposed respected scholars such as Gagnon who are equating the epistles of Paul as though they are unquestionably of divine authority simply because someone saw fit to include them in a 'holy book'. They also use these supposed 'divine documents' with which to unequivocally make judgment and condemnation on others. Moreover, these people are believed by others by virtue of the 'impressive' titles suffixed to their names that describe their academic qualifications! So, in the minds of the average Christian, scholars such as Gagnon take on the very same unquestionable "God-like" authority that has already been applied - without any evidence whatever - to Paul.

[Danmark]

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.

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

I don't believe you have responded to the fact that Paul picks and chooses which of the laws in Leviticus he chooses to waive away, and which he wants to reinforce. This is similar to your insistence on equating homosexuality with promiscuity, whereas you appear to equate heterosexuality with monogamy. Do you condemn the promiscuous heterosexual equally with the promiscuous homosexual? Do you condemn the faithful and monogamous homosexual equally with the promiscuous heterosexual? If it is really the desires of the flesh you are condemning, than isn't it promiscuity and lasciviousness that you are really condemning?

[99percentatheism]

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.

Yup I have held that position consistently throughout post after post.

But for Christians the common sense of what Paul points out is ageless.

[99percentatheism]

Danmark

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.

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

I don't believe you have responded to the fact that Paul picks and chooses which of the laws in Leviticus he chooses to waive away, and which he wants to reinforce.

So what?

This is similar to your insistence on equating homosexuality with promiscuity, whereas you appear to equate heterosexuality with monogamy.

Why must I endure so many personally directed posts? Why can't I just debate subjects like this place was designed for? Must I always play the mouse in this cat's game?

I compare marriage to monogamy and marriage is man and woman/husband and wife. For Christians.

I equate homosexuality with homosexuality. Nothing more and certainly nothing less. And promiscuity? You may want to look up the term PrEP.

Do you condemn the promiscuous heterosexual equally with the promiscuous homosexual?

Why would I not?

Do you condemn the faithful and monogamous homosexual equally with the promiscuous heterosexual?

I don't live in a world where homosexuality factors into ti at all. That is for other people's choice behaviors and chosen worldviews.

If it is really the desires of the flesh you are condemning, than isn't it promiscuity and lasciviousness that you are really condemning?

I'm a Christian. That is the world and worldview in which I desire to live. Whatever those "in the world" want to justify and celebrate, that is for the consequences such choices bring to them. All I know is that I cannot justify or excuse my own sins by pop culture or by any congenital excuse other than original sin. What I do consistently condemn is lying and pretending that a lie can be the truth. Or as Jude puts it: Contend for the faith delivered only once to the saints.

[99percentatheism]

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.

Oh really? Did the Vikings rape and pillage before or after they became Christians? The Crusades? Before or after the Muslims took Jerusalem by force of war? The United States of America? Secular nation of Christian nation? 100% secular according to every atheist that I have ever heard from or heard of.

Jihad? No need to elaborate at all huh?

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

Yes. It's rather simple, really.

Yes it is rather really 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 "

Per Jesus it is.

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...?

Heresy and false teachings by false teachers is seen even in the first century Church. Read Jude and look up the meaning of the parable about tares and wheat.

What is amazingly good about Christianity and Christians is that it and they call for self examination first and foremost. And then on to others . . . And in some cases there is no other choice than to cast the dust from your feet and allow people their fate. That's how I live my Christian life. Notice I don't preach or proselytize here? I don't fo it often in real life either. I don't feel I am called to do that.

Hate and fear demand civil rights today.

Confusion again. Hate and fear do no demanding - people do.

I am so rarely confused here at this website as to be almost free from the experience. And the only time I am confused is when someone says they are a Christian but look, sound and act just like anti Christians and are cheered on by non and anti Christians. But even then I am not really confused as in confused.

Though it's interesting that you equate the 'demanding of civil rights' as a negative thing - something religion has no business in.

Not according to the secularists that wrote the United States Constitution. A free press and assemblies most definitely have to do with the business of society.

Yet, here we are. Seems religion can't keep its nose out of the business of others when religion itself needs structure and guidance.

What I see as unstructured is secularism. Just look around at the world today? The New Testament on the other hand is quite well structured.

But after the laughter comes tears for the unrepentant.

No...usually more laughter

True but I sometimes repent about laughing. But sometimes not. I like slapstick comedy. If you know what I mean. If not, send me a PM.

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.

If I don't I could get sued or lose a government contract right? But I am preparing my life for that anyway. Lot's of off shore savings accounts.

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'm sorry but that means nothing to me. Explain it more plainly.

I noticed you took the time to answer a lot of questions, but 'skipped' these:
Curious 99:

I am always curious as to why so many people that post here address me so personally and so directly instead of just debating issues. With a Christian, debating shoud be easy as the New Testament is a quick read and so direct to subjects.

While you probably won't answer as asked, I'll ask it anyway:

I try to avoid traps.

1) do you want gay people in your religion if it weren't 'a sin' (according to you)?

It's none of my business what people that engage in same gender sexual behavior do with their Sunday's. Or any other day. Unless they demand that I celebrate their sexual inclinations and behaviors. Then of course THEY have made it my business haven't they?

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?

"Gays" demand that they have a congenital excuse and pass for their sexual sins.

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

You are seeking much more than just clarification. And who is the "are we?"

I have written and authored enough threads and posts for anyone with over a few days here knowing exactly what and why and how I believe what I do. I am Christian that "affirms" the New Testament. Marriage is man and woman/husband and wife. Same gender sexual acts have no support from the New Testament.

That seems like clarification to me. Is it enough for you and the "are we?"

[99percentatheism]

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.

"Summon up Jesus Christ?" Um I can't go with you there KCKID because it sounds like borderline sorcery.

But what we do have is Jesus REAFFIRMING that marriage is man and woman/husband and wife. And, never saying even one word about homosexuals or homosexuality "as we know it today."

As my dear, departed mother used to say, "There are none so blind as those who don't want to see."

Hmmmmm, "marriage?" Husband and wife as in male person as the husband and female person as the wife? ONLY condemnation of anything to do with homosexuality in the Bible and NO mention of homosexuals or homosexuality AT ALL in the entire Bible???

Now what was that your dear old Mom used to say?

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.

Kind of prophetic don't you think?

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?

No I am not. I am referencing yet again a gay theologian spouting gay theology. Nothing more at all. And certainly nothing less.

If not, then what ARE you implying?

Me? Imply? That's simply impossible huh?

I only learned of Matthew Vines' existence a few months ago.

A few months ago? I never heard him mentioned in our exchanges until I referenced him.

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.

Why is that utterly UN-shocking to me? KCKID, you and I have been at this a long time. Your positions come from the same ideology as does Vines'.

On the contrary, he comes across as a warm, caring and intelligent human being.

So what? A propagandist is usually warm, caring and witty aren't they?

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?

All I can test of him is that he "preaches" another Gospel. He is also a gay activist and speaks basically for LGBT pride from what I've heard. Do any of his videos preach conversion to the lost? Somehow I don't think there are many of those videos on Youtube. Remember I too listened to him on Moody radio. He just sounded like a gay pride activist to me.

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?

I have to ask for a pass in answering that. There are many eyes that squint to see me banned here. Send me a PM and I'll answer that straightforward.

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

Why? Why do i need to give any personal answers to these questions about Vines? His theology speaks for itself and has no support from the Bible other than his opinion based on "Did God really say?"

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.

That is a misplaced charge and a false one as well. I couldn't care less about Matthew Vines until he enters my world and demands I celebrate, condone and affirm his sexual tastes. He has made his choice and his fate is not up to me at all. I am just to stay clear of people like him that's all.

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?

I don't buy that propaganda at all. It is more likley that people that engage in gay sex commit suicide while IN the LGBT community and culture. Don't lay their choices on me or any other Christian that chooses as best as it is possible to live life like a Christian should.

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

So you are demanding that I scrap the Bible for the DSM V? Which of course is a book written by men. And men as fallible as any that have ever lived in any age.

By the way, gay behavior used to be a mental illness in psychology and there are still books around that say that that have not been burned or thrown away.

. . . 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!

Possibly getting it wrong? Not according to history. And the theology that is pro gay comes from as long ago as maybe the 1950's or 60's and out of the sexual revolution. Hardly a Church movement.

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.

"By their fruit you will know them."

Those half-dozen so-called 'anti-gay' scriptures that you use as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality are shrouded with ambiguity.

Half dozen or so? Where do you come up with that number? There is ZERO scriptures that support, affirm, condone, approve of or that celebrate homosexuality as we know it today. And as you know very well, I do not use the "clobber passages" alone and certainly nothing I have used is ambiguous at all.

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?

What? Why won't homosexuals side with us? WE are the ones with all of the support and supportive theology behind our positions.

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?

We keep going around the same circles. "I" do not judge people's souls or eternity. That is the sole power of Christ Jesus alone! I can only judge actions and statements. And in that respect I can never "yoke" myself to gay activists anywhere.

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!

Based on what right? What justification? Gay pride has only entered The Church in extremely recent years. And it is a secular movement is it not? Stonewall Inn is not a Christian Cathedral.

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!

That is a very threatening and very insulting position to assert. You have no justification for saying something like that to a Christian. Why not just encourage people that enjoy homosexuality to respect the Christians that do not affirm that behavior and have those so inclined to engaging in same sex sexual behavior to go to Churches and denominations that will celebrate gay sex all day long?

And even better, go to Matthew Vines' website and invite him or his followers here to enter this debate?

[KCKID]

And even better, go to Matthew Vines' website and invite him or his followers here to enter this debate?

I just now sent an email to the address on the Matthew Vines' website inviting him (or others if they care to) to participate in this thread. So, we'll wait and see what happens.

[KCKID]

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.

"Summon up Jesus Christ?" Um I can't go with you there KCKID because it sounds like borderline sorcery.

Um, that was a hypothetical ...as you know, of course. I'm not really planning to do it ...

But what we do have is Jesus REAFFIRMING that marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

Yeah, that's okay. No one is denying the right of a man and woman marrying. I think most of us are good with that ...even though 50% or so of these unions end up in divorce thereby adversely affecting the parties involved as well as their children. Seems like marriage today has little to do with Jesus. What d'ya think?

And, never saying even one word about homosexuals or homosexuality "as we know it today."

Yes, I noticed that too. Apparently it was SUCH a topic of interest for the 'future Christian Church' that Jesus neglected to say a thing about it.

As my dear, departed mother used to say, "There are none so blind as those who don't want to see."

Hmmmmm, "marriage?" Husband and wife as in male person as the husband and female person as the wife? ONLY condemnation of anything to do with homosexuality in the Bible and NO mention of homosexuals or homosexuality AT ALL in the entire Bible???

That's okay. That happens. Human beings are creative enough to invent and reinvent many things that are not found in the Bible. Christians have re-invented "Christianity" that I'm guessing is far removed from its original form by presenting us with thousands of denominations and off-shoots that are all supposed to represent the same Jesus. The popular ones love to promote, indeed flaunt, a tangible 'infilling of the Holy Spirit" with some weird and wonderful antics that often rival a circus. Speaking in tongues, slaying in the Spirit, holy laughter, etc. etc. Yes indeedy ...Churches often display their own personalities and some, I'm sure, would make Jesus roll over in His grave if He were still dead. The so-called "Prosperity Churches" seem to be increasing in popularity. They encourage their growing membership of greedy individuals to seek after 'deserved' wealth that will surely come their way once they 'accept' God. The monetary theme behind these type Churches and the preaching of their leaders reminds me of the Michael Douglas' character (Gordon Gecko) from the movie "Wall Street" who preached HIS now infamous sermon of ..."Greed is good!"

I don't think any of these things are found in the Bible or are reminiscent of "Jesus" either, but hey . . .that's people for ya. I doubt there would be one person alive who would be considered to be 100% bonafide "followers of the Bible." I think we probably have a lot of 'pretenders' though.

And then, of course, there are these gay people who are now wanting monogamous relations with their partners and thereby wanting these committed relationships to be officially recognized by both the Christian Church and society in general. The nerve of these people ...!

Now what was that your dear old Mom used to say?

Um, she used to say that there are none so blind as those who don't want to see. Same as before.

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.

Kind of prophetic don't you think?

I don't know.

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?

No I am not. I am referencing yet again a gay theologian spouting gay theology. Nothing more at all. And certainly nothing less.

He's a gay person. And, he never asked to be gay. And, he's okay with that. Many of us are okay with that. How come you're not okay with that? Also, why should anyone care that you're not okay with that?

If not, then what ARE you implying?

Me? Imply? That's simply impossible huh?

I don't know what that means.

I only learned of Matthew Vines' existence a few months ago.

A few months ago? I never heard him mentioned in our exchanges until I referenced him.

Well, there ya go.

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.

Why is that utterly UN-shocking to me? KCKID, you and I have been at this a long time. Your positions come from the same ideology as does Vines'.

But, if it's 'truthful' ideology then that's a good thing, isn't it

On the contrary, he comes across as a warm, caring and intelligent human being.

So what? A propagandist is usually warm, caring and witty aren't they?

Hmmm . . .I guess that's supposed to make Matthew Vines look bad for being warm, caring and intelligent because propagandists can also come across as warm, caring and ...witty . . .?

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?

All I can test of him is that he "preaches" another Gospel.

Well, I would say that any 'hateful message' would more be an example of "preaching another Gospel." From what I know of Matthew Vines he preaches the opposite of hate. So does John Shelby Spong and so do an increasing number of other Christians. I like that.

He is also a gay activist and speaks basically for LGBT pride from what I've heard.

He's speaking for the rights of both himself and his gay friends to be who they are without being discriminated against by 'the religious ones.'

Do any of his videos preach conversion to the lost?

Who are 'the lost'? Those that don't believe as you do?

Somehow I don't think there are many of those videos on Youtube. Remember I too listened to him on Moody radio. He just sounded like a gay pride activist to me.

How else would he sound to those who really do appear to be cocooned within their own perceived piety.

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?

I have to ask for a pass in answering that. There are many eyes that squint to see me banned here. Send me a PM and I'll answer that straightforward.

Well, I think you just answered the question even without the need of a PM.

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

Why? Why do i need to give any personal answers to these questions about Vines? His theology speaks for itself and has no support from the Bible other than his opinion based on "Did God really say?"

Well, what did God really say? I would say that God never said anything about, um, anything. You see, God didn't write the Bible. I realize that you believe the Bible authors were somehow inspired by an invisible deity who guided their thoughts and their quills. However, none of us can prove this, sad to say. So, until we can prove that the words found in the Bible are the actual unequivocal and immutable thoughts of an invisible deity then it remains simply an unsubstantiated belief which cannot be used to support one's personal agenda, whatever that agenda might be.

To be cont'd.

[Danmark]

I don't believe you have responded to the fact that Paul picks and chooses which of the laws in Leviticus he chooses to waive away, and which he wants to reinforce.

So what?

This is similar to your insistence on equating homosexuality with promiscuity, whereas you appear to equate heterosexuality with monogamy.

Why must I endure so many personally directed posts? Why can't I just debate subjects like this place was designed for? Must I always play the mouse in this cat's game?

I compare marriage to monogamy and marriage is man and woman/husband and wife. For Christians.

I equate homosexuality with homosexuality. Nothing more and certainly nothing less. And promiscuity? You may want to look up the term PrEP.

Do you condemn the promiscuous heterosexual equally with the promiscuous homosexual?

Why would I not?

Do you condemn the faithful and monogamous homosexual equally with the promiscuous heterosexual?

I don't live in a world where homosexuality factors into ti at all. That is for other people's choice behaviors and chosen worldviews.

If it is really the desires of the flesh you are condemning, than isn't it promiscuity and lasciviousness that you are really condemning?

I'm a Christian. That is the world and worldview in which I desire to live. Whatever those "in the world" want to justify and celebrate, that is for the consequences such choices bring to them. All I know is that I cannot justify or excuse my own sins by pop culture or by any congenital excuse other than original sin. What I do consistently condemn is lying and pretending that a lie can be the truth. Or as Jude puts it: Contend for the faith delivered only once to the saints.

There is no need to chop a single short paragraph into five confusing parts with one-liner answers, particularly when such parsing gives a misreading and allows you to ignore the key question the paragraph was pointing to.
I wrote:

I don't believe you have responded to the fact that Paul picks and chooses which of the laws in Leviticus he chooses to waive away, and which he wants to reinforce. This is similar to your insistence on equating homosexuality with promiscuity, whereas you appear to equate heterosexuality with monogamy. Do you condemn the promiscuous heterosexual equally with the promiscuous homosexual? Do you condemn the faithful and monogamous homosexual equally with the promiscuous heterosexual? If it is really the desires of the flesh you are condemning, than isn't it promiscuity and lasciviousness that you are really condemning?

The reason Paul's practice of deciding the Christian can ignore some of God's laws and not others shows how arbitrary he is. It is evidence that a Christian can ignore him when goes off on his personal attacks. You did not answer the question [emphasized above]. Isn't the heart of the Pauline and Christian issue the promiscuity and lasciviousness that stands for the fleshly desires, and not the commitment of a monogamous, faithful relationship centered on love?

You ask why you must endure personal attacks. That is your judgment as to how you see challenges to the logic and soundness of your position. If you see others as 'personally attacking you,' you might ask yourself about the tone your writing conveys.

[KCKID]

Cont’d response to 99percentatheism from post 364:

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.

That is a misplaced charge and a false one as well. I couldn't care less about Matthew Vines until he enters my world and demands I celebrate, condone and affirm his sexual tastes.

I spoke of ‘the Matthew Vines of this world’ …not specifically Matthew Vines.

He has made his choice and his fate is not up to me at all. I am just to stay clear of people like him that's all.

Spoken like a true representative of Jesus Christ. Not!

Gay people have NOT made any more choice regarding their sexuality than have you ...whatever your sexuality happens to be. I personally don't care what it is. Flaunting your ignorance with regard to 'sexuality' won't bide too well with regard to convincing others to agree with your particular stance on this issue.

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?

I don't buy that propaganda at all. It is more likley that people that engage in gay sex commit suicide while IN the LGBT community and culture. Don't lay their choices on me or any other Christian that chooses as best as it is possible to live life like a Christian should.

Yes, your previous response was indicative of someone striving to live the life of a Christian. Not!

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

So you are demanding that I scrap the Bible for the DSM V? Which of course is a book written by men. And men as fallible as any that have ever lived in any age.

Newsflash! Both the DSM V AND the Bible were written by ‘fallible’ men!

By the way, gay behavior used to be a mental illness in psychology and there are still books around that say that that have not been burned or thrown away.

Funny you should bring up psychology, 99percent. Below are a few snippets from a couple of articles that deal with Fundamentalism as being a Psychological problem. Feel free to skip the parts in red unless the psychology of fundamentalism is your thing.

What is a fundamentalist? A fundamentalist is usually considered to be a person who adheres strictly to a doctrine, viewpoint or set of principles that are considered original and 'pure'; this doctrine might be theological in nature. For the fundamentalist, many of their beliefs and the behaviors that arise from them will, at least in theory, be derivative of their fundamental doctrine. For the fundamentalist, there is no room to consider views that are at variance with their accepted doctrine and contrary views will usually either be dismissed out-of-hand or resisted with considerable vigor and, often, violence.

In contrast to the fundamentalist, a person who is 'open-minded' may still hold strong views and perhaps even have a strong conscientious position on certain issues. They will usually behave in accordance with those views and their conscience. However, despite this, they will usually also demonstrate a willingness to seriously contemplate an alternative view or course of action before discarding it. Moreover, they are likely to accept suffering, in one form or another, as the outcome of their conscientious position; they are unlikely to use violence to 'defend' it. Fundamentalism, in a religious guise, is both widespread and problematic. For example, Christian fundamentalism plays a crucial role in shaping US domestic policies in relation to abortion, gay marriage and theories of evolution . . .

Psychologically, a fundamentalist is a person with an intense fear of being 'wrong'; that is, an intense fear of being judged to hold the wrong' view or to engage in the 'wrong' behavior. This intense fear of being wrong develops during childhood when one or both parents, and probably teachers, dogmatically refuse to listen to the child, thus denying it the chance to develop its own views and moral code (based on its own experience), while also terrorizing (by threatening and using violence) the child into believing/adopting a particular set of values and beliefs, and behaving in a particular manner. It is the intensity of their fear of being judged 'wrong', and the violence they will suffer if they are so judged, that makes the child hold, with phenomenal tenacity, to the 'approved doctrine' with which they are presented. It is this intense fear of being wrong that marks out the fundamentalist from the person who is open-minded and/or conscientious.

Fundamentalism is a significant social problem, particularly in some contexts. And to fix it, we need to recognize its psychological origin. Unfortunately, however, this is not easy to do because the terror that holds their value and belief system in place, and drives their behavior, is deeply hidden within the individual's psyche.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e37337.htm

Fundamentalist Christians often find themselves embroiled in controversial issues.
Recently, the battleground has turned to the arena of psychology as therapists study and isolate the effect of fundamentalism on believers and on ex-adherents.
Psychologists across the country are becoming increasingly concerned about the possible psychological dangers of fundamentalism, a type of Christianity usually characterized by a strict, literal interpretation of the Bible. This criticism is coming from inside Christianity, and from outside its folds. Marlene Winell, PhD., is a licensed psychologist who has been practicing in Fort Collins for three years. Born in Hong Kong of Pentecostal missionaries, Winell now describes herself as an ex-fundamentalist.

In August, Winell will present a paper at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association in New York City. In this paper, Winell identifies certain symptoms she believes are common in people who have left the fundamentalist belief system. She quotes Bible verses that she believes leads people to develop certain tendencies that constitute a syndrome, very much like the syndrome experienced by adult children of alcoholics.

Unlike that syndrome, however. Winell acknowledges that many positive experiences often occur in a fundamentalist family.

For the past year, Winell has been taking a critical look at tier ex-faith, and talking about her experiences with clients and other associates. She has identified 11 typical "features" of former fundamentalists. These features range from disregard of human emotions, to low self-esteem and the inability to find fulfillment from within.

"What people out of this background really struggle with is simply relaxing and being happy in the present, instead of how it's going to be someday in the future," explains Winell. "That strikes me as really very tragic.''
http://marlenewinell.net/page/psycholog ... estion-e-0

The entire page that deals with the topic of Fundamentalism: A Psychological Problem is:
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourcei ... Psychology

. . . 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!

Possibly getting it wrong? Not according to history. And the theology that is pro gay comes from as long ago as maybe the 1950's or 60's and out of the sexual revolution. Hardly a Church movement.

Where, in history, have the half-dozen ‘clobber texts’ of the Bible been used by the Church to condemn homosexuality? It’s only a recent phenomenon as far as I’m aware. Because it’s a recent phenomenon the ‘pro-gay theology’ you speak of has been the result of serious Bible exegesis having been sought in order to counter the vicious attacks of homosexuals (both verbally and physically) by those that use certain scriptures with which to denigrate them!

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.

"By their fruit you will know them."

Are you’re saying that my admitting to being an average Joe with absolutely no affiliation with any so-called ‘gay movement’ is an indication of my ‘bad fruit’?

You sure know how to hurt a guy.

Those half-dozen so-called 'anti-gay' scriptures that you use as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality are shrouded with ambiguity.

Half dozen or so? Where do you come up with that number?

Um, yes …there are a half dozen or so scriptures that Christians use to condemn homosexuality. There are two or three (if one references Sodom & Gomorrah) misinterpreted texts in the Old Testament and two or three misinterpreted texts in the New Testament. Total: about a half dozen. Is there something wrong with my math?

There is ZERO scriptures that support, affirm, condone, approve of or that celebrate homosexuality as we know it today. And as you know very well, I do not use the "clobber passages" alone and certainly nothing I have used is ambiguous at all.

As said previously, Why would I be debating the “ZERO� scriptures you speak of when they have nothing to do with the topic? I don’t care what the Bible DOES NOT say about homosexuality. Seems as if you’ve now warmed to the fact that the ‘clobber’ passages don’t mean and never have meant what you and yours want them to say and so you now rely on the Bible’s silence on the matter. A somewhat strange form of ‘Bible exegesis’, don’tcha think?

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?

What? Why won't homosexuals side with us? WE are the ones with all of the support and supportive theology behind our positions.

“Why won’t homosexuals side with us …?� you ask. I’ll have to think about that for a while. I’m sure it wouldn’t be because you allude to them as ‘abominations’, or that God hates them and has given you the murky task of telling them they’re hell-bound until they repent of their homosexuality and convert to heterosexuality.

Hmmm . . .other than that I really have no idea why gay people won’t side with you . . .

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?

We keep going around the same circles. "I" do not judge people's souls or eternity. That is the sole power of Christ Jesus alone! I can only judge actions and statements.

And, 'Christ Jesus alone' is not recorded in scripture of either having judged the actions of homosexuals OR having made any statement AT ALL about homosexuality. I realize how frustrating it is that the icon of Christianity never even broached the subject. He did, however, have a bit to say about divorce and remarriage = adultery (that Christians ignore) and the news ain't good ...!

And in that respect I can never "yoke" myself to gay activists anywhere.

But you CAN 'yoke yourself' to scriptural adulterers ...? Does the topic of glaring hypocrisy ever come up when you're preaching your anti-gay message (as you've stated you do) to your Christian flock? Or, do they know so little about the Bible that they can't even recognize hypocrisy when they see/hear it?

That said, you’re using the entire Bible and its silence on the topic to make judgment on homosexuals so it’s not a stretch to assume that you’d be using Jesus’ silence on the topic of homosexuality as support for your anti-gay stance. Again, a strange form of Bible exegesis …moreover, a personal 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!

Based on what right? What justification? Gay pride has only entered The Church in extremely recent years. And it is a secular movement is it not? Stonewall Inn is not a Christian Cathedral.

Perhaps you missed my point. I said that I believe that very few Christians care too much about what the Bible may or may not say about homosexuality …or anything else for that matter. One's aversion toward homosexuality (and other pet dislikes) is more a personal thing. As the old adage goes, "God hates the very same things that 'I' hate."

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!

That is a very threatening and very insulting position to assert.

But making judgment on someone else and condemning them to an eternity of hell-fire because they’re different to you ISN’T a threatening and insulting position to assert? This comes through in just about every response you post, 99perent, and you’re using a book (coupled with your own personal dislike) with which to do this. "I" don’t necessarily believe that the Bible is an evil book (I’m not too sure what it is) but it sure does play havoc with the minds of some folks!

You have no justification for saying something like that to a Christian.

Christians, by virtue of a self-applied label, are immune from any criticism?

I would NOT say any such thing to a great many Christians who I have associated with and respected over many years. My comments are never intended as blanket statements for every Christian. But, as I’m sure you know …there are Christians and ‘Christians’. And, each of us determine which is which based on who we are and what our own personal feelings tell us, don't we, 99percent?

Why not just encourage people that enjoy homosexuality to respect the Christians that do not affirm that behavior and have those so inclined to engaging in same sex sexual behavior to go to Churches and denominations that will celebrate gay sex all day long?

Yes, I guess the use of sarcasm in a demeaning manner is yet another example of your "Christian walk', 99percent. You do realize, do you not, that behind the label of 'gay' is an actual human being ...? It often doesn't sound like you do.

And even better, go to Matthew Vines' website and invite him or his followers here to enter this debate?

As said, I’ve already done this. We'll wait and see whether he or his staff respond.