Should Christians evangelize gays?

[Aerika]

You do know what the "T" stands for in the GLBT label? Literally the act of conversion.

Notice number three:

conversion

k

n-vûr

zh

n, -sh

n)
n. 1. a. The act of converting.
b. The state of being converted.

2. A change in which one adopts a new religion, faith, or belief.
3. Something that is changed from one use, function, or purpose to another.




What's fisting got to do with love and sex? Even in China. No matter what you like to drink.

GLBT = Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, Transsexual or Transgendered. But why am I not surprised by your post.

 

[Paulos23]

You do know what the "T" stands for in the GLBT label? Literally the act of conversion.

Err no. Stop making stuff up.

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender

Since when has Transgender mean the act of conversion?

From Wikipedia:

While people identify as transgender, transgender identity includes many overlapping categories. These include cross-dresser (CD); transvestite (TV); androgynes; genderqueer; people who live cross-gender; drag kings; and drag queens; and, frequently, transsexual (TS).[17]

 

[SughaNSpice]

Yet, you're at a place called "Christian Forums." Got your glasses on?

Sorry pal, some of us Christians aren't taking the accusations made about us from you guys anymore. Our children are too important to us to be silenced any more.

But the accusations of discrimination and false witness made against homosexuals is true….and the accusations you make against homosexuals are false…and based on your hatred…and nothing like the teachings of Jesus

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You do know what the "T" stands for in the GLBT label? Literally the act of conversion.

Notice number three:

conversion

k

n-vûr

zh

n, -sh

n)
n. 1. a. The act of converting.
b. The state of being converted.

2. A change in which one adopts a new religion, faith, or belief.
3. Something that is changed from one use, function, or purpose to another.

As has been pointed out to you, the "T" stands for transgender, as in "transgender people". It has nothing to do with seeking or facilitating any form of "conversion from straight to homosexual."

What's fisting got to do with love and sex? Even in China. No matter what you like to drink.

You brought fisting up, and I'm trying to find of what relevence it has to the conversation?

Its a pan spectrum sexual act, it has nothing to do with homosexuality

 

[BigBadWlf]

That is the rumor. But then again, Jesus and the Apostles gave us examples of false teachings and false teachers existing in great authority within the Church.

A fine example is what you are teaching right here.

Muslims, Secular Humanists, heretics and Homosexuals seem to be the top four,

I’m sure you find think that of all minorities.

when seeing who is attacking The Church worldwide. So, you may br wrong and you may be right. It's all according to what is going on on any particular day. From the threads here at this place, I would say it goes, Humanists, heretics and homosexuals. But necessarily in that order.

You are just one of the people claiming to be Christian who is doing the attacking and actual damage to Christianity

"Repugnant." Yes, to GLBT culture and its community of supporters, that would be a proper use of the word to them when opposed by people not wanting anything to do with they and their sexual proclivities.

I find you and your sexual proclivities rather repugnant

I'm just singling out the worst group of people against Christians that promote homosexuality to Christians. That would be the homosexuals. I misrepresent the group how? Is someone else spreading homosexuality into the Church other than homosexual groups and their supporters? Christians should just sit back and allow that?

Am sure you find blacks and Hispanics and other minorities equally as repulsive and offensive

 

[BigBadWlf]

I'm sure pagans find Christian truth repugnant. This is where the word "duh" takes on the scholarly.

You obviously have never bothered to actually talk to a Pagan.

Like promoting gay sex and then calling Christians that oppose that as haters? That includes every Apostle and Disciple. Heavy stuff your position holds.

you keep telling those lies, but repeating a lie doesn’t make it true

Where do I state that? I am just claiming that GLBT's are encouraging people (and children at that) to engage in same-gender sex acts and, that that is completely OK. I'm wrong how?

Because it is a like. Just as if you were going around saying that black men will rape any white woman they come across.

That is true. The Bible is completely silent on Christians being encouraged to have gay sex. But it is NOT silent on NOT having gay sex. Paul, starts that ball rolling.

Only if one is dishonest and claims that the Greek word arsenokoites must mean homosexual

All I do is take a side. I side with Jesus and the Apostles.

You ignore the teachings of Jesus. How is that taking his side?

Where am I doing that or, promoting that? This thread is literally about that. Pagans can do what they wilteth.

Christians on the other hand are taught differently from the Gospel and witness of the NT writings.

except all the stuff you choose to ignore

 

[Blayz]

Only if one is dishonest and claims that the Greek word arsenokoites must mean homosexual

Well, that's not entirely correct. arsenokoites is a Greek word in the same way the supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is an English word. Arsenkoites was made up by Paul. Interesting, since the Greeks had actual words for homosexual.

Don't know that it helps though, idolators that do this to a book can have it say anything.

I still want to know what I can do to get on the non-evangelicising ban list though. Apparently being homosexual is worse than committing the only unforgivable sin in the bible.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I know homosexuals who seem to understand what sin is and what lies are.

Like the laundry list of lies conservative Christians put out about gays and lesbians?

Lies like:
Homosexuals have an average life span of 38 years
Homosexuals don’t really want to get married
AIDS is a gay disease
Homosexuals can and do change their sexual orientation
Homosexuals have unfettered access to schools where they teach small children to engage in gay sex
Homosexuals recruit children
Homosexuals are thousands of times more likely to have a STD
There is a gay agenda
There never has been same sex marriages
Homosexuals are not a minority
Homosexuals are promiscuous
One half of al child molestations are perpetrated by homosexuals

And hundreds of other lies

 

[BigBadWlf]

Well, that's not entirely correct. arsenokoites is a Greek word in the same way the supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is an English word. Arsenkoites was made up by Paul. Interesting, since the Greeks had actual words for homosexual.

Don't know that it helps though, idolators that do this to a book can have it say anything.

I still want to know what I can do to get on the non-evangelicising ban list though. Apparently being homosexual is worse than committing the only unforgivable sin in the bible.

Well there is evidence that it was a word when Paul used it. about a half dozen writings contemporary to Paul used it. There is some interesting debate about whether this was an actual (though rarely used word) or if these other authors borrowed the word and its meaning from Paul. None of these other writers used arsenokoites to mean homosexual though. The best supported interpretation is that it means a man who sexually exploits women for money, IE a pimp or a john

 

[SallyNow]

Should Christians bother to evangelize to capitalists?

 

[Aeris]

From a christian POV the answer to the OP would probably be yes, but I think the answer to the question should be no. Most (if not all) gay people know what christianity's stance on homosexuality is (therefore they do not need someone to evangelize to them), the ones who are non-christian dont care what the bible says because they dont believe in christianity, and the ones who are christian (yes they do exist) may or may not believe that homosexuality is a sin, and if they feel they need guidance to help them deal with their sexuality, whether it be to accept it or to try change it or become celebate, Im sure there are plenty of people in their church who would be willing to help them, as well as friends, family, or professional therapists.

 

[cantata]

cantata, then you as a queer non-theist are saying "yes"?

Or, "no"?

Should Christians evangleize "Gays," and/or the L's or the B's or the T's?

Yes, they certainly should, if they are to be both loving and consistent in their views. If I saw someone about to be run over by a bus, it wouldn't matter who they were - I'd shout for them to get out of the way. It seems to me that if Christians really believe that non-Christians, homosexual or otherwise, are destined for hell, they have a duty to help them, just as everyone has a duty to shout for people to get out of the way of buses.

However, there are two interesting things to note. Firstly, they should probably leave Christian homosexuals alone. I think the message of Christ is probably most important, and they've already got it.

Secondly, their efforts at conversion should focus on that message, not on homosexuality. You don't see Christians trying to convert people-who-have-premarital-sex-as-a-group, or divorcées-as-a-group, or bearers-of-false-witness-as-a-group. And that's good! The message of Christ, such as it is, is one that will hopefully fill the convert with a new zeal to live a good life, and by the way, in my opinion I think it's probably best to leave that business up to God, post-conversion. That's because a message focused on sin will fail to win converts. The Christian's duty is not to make non-Christians feel guilty. It is to show them the love of Christ. Preaching in such a way that they don't notice the love of Christ for all the shouting is deeply selfish.

I am not a Christian, but that makes no difference to the fact that I prefer honest Christians to hypocritical ones. You think that failing to accept Christ means you will suffer for eternity? Then you should get converting, and you should feel thoroughly ashamed if you ever alienate someone from Christianity through your preaching.

Christians didn't make up those labels, homosexuals and the transgendered people did.

Christians insist on using "homosexual" because it dehumanises gay people and makes them sound like a separate species. It would be wise to sensitively use the words that non-heterosexual people choose for themselves, if you hope to speak to them seriously about their eternal salvation.

 

[NPH]

Should Christians evangelize gays?

No, because then our numbers would fall a bit and we'd have to work harder at recruiting your children.

 

[PsychMJC]

I know homosexuals who seem to understand what sin is and what lies are.

And I've known Christian bigots. As a matter of fact I see one right now. OTOH, I've known quite a few who were loving and accepting. Whats your point? You never seem to actually MAKE a point, you just spout random nonsense..

 

[Belk]

No, because then our numbers would fall a bit and we'd have to work harder at recruiting your children.

True, but think how easy it would be to get in to all those trendy night clubs.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Yes, they certainly should, if they are to be both loving and consistent in their views. If I saw someone about to be run over by a bus, it wouldn't matter who they were - I'd shout for them to get out of the way. It seems to me that if Christians really believe that non-Christians, homosexual or otherwise, are destined for hell, they have a duty to help them, just as everyone has a duty to shout for people to get out of the way of buses.

How well written.

However, there are two interesting things to note. Firstly, they should probably leave Christian homosexuals alone.

From the vantage point of the New Testament, which defines what Christians should do, there is no homosexual Christians. Though, I do firmly believe that if they continue to push ntheir way into Bible-affirming Churches, that homosexual Christians should build their own denomination. I would say, a new religion, but I do believe that engaging in same-gender sex acts does not make one a non-Christian. It just puts them out of leadership and authority within the Church structure. I'll show why a little lower.

I think the message of Christ is probably most important, and they've already got it.

According to that message of Christ, there are people that will claim to be Christians, but they are ravenous wolves in sheeps clothing. I think the Catholic Church has proven the sensibility of that teaching.

Secondly, their efforts at conversion should focus on that message, not on homosexuality. You don't see Christians trying to convert people-who-have-premarital-sex-as-a-group, or divorcées-as-a-group, or bearers-of-false-witness-as-a-group.

You don't EVER see adulterers and the promiscuous, or liars standing up and procliaming how proud they are to engage in any of those sins. It seems to dwell exclusiveliy within the homosexual to demand that their sins and sinning never be considered. That makes them exist in a whole different category to other sinners. In fact, according to them, they are not sinning at all. They (and they alone) have a congenital excuse for it.

And that's good! The message of Christ, such as it is, is one that will hopefully fill the convert with a new zeal to live a good life, and by the way, in my opinion I think it's probably best to leave that business up to God, post-conversion.

"By their fruits you will know them." The fruits of GLBT culture is antithetical to Christian culture. We are comparing apples to apples.

That's because a message focused on sin will fail to win converts.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son . . ."

To save sinners.

You may want to read "why" Jesus had to come. It was not because everyone was lovng each other so much.

The Christian's duty is not to make non-Christians feel guilty. It is to show them the love of Christ. Preaching in such a way that they don't notice the love of Christ for all the shouting is deeply selfish.

I have heard many great points of view about Christians and what they should do, from atheists. And your is definately one of them.

I am not a Christian, but that makes no difference to the fact that I prefer honest Christians to hypocritical ones.

Then we should be the best of buds. I love my fellow believers so much, I risk the rath and vitriol of non and anti-Christians virtually every time I interact with them.

You think that failing to accept Christ means you will suffer for eternity? Then you should get converting, and you should feel thoroughly ashamed if you ever alienate someone from Christianity through your preaching.

I do feel thoroughly ashamed at my tactics sometimes. But I am just a man that takes umbridge at the "better-than-thou and more-enlightened than-thou" attitude and positions of the common anti and non Christian. They are the bullies. I just give them what they give. And I must admit I do enjoy their whining. It is a sin I do admit.

Christians insist on using "homosexual" because it dehumanises gay people and makes them sound like a separate species.

They literally claim to be a special class of people that's for sure. To a Christian, they are just a person that engages in sinful behavior. That behavior has come to known as homosexuality. You are mistaken, and/or progammed to see the opposition to same-gender sex acts as some kind of bigotry or (of course) the neologism "homophobia." That was invented to criminalize Christians and the Gospel. That is where the demonic enters into te picture. And, accurately so in light of scripture.

[quoteIt would be wise to sensitively use the words that non-heterosexual people choose for themselves, if you hope to speak to them seriously about their eternal salvation.[/quote]

ANY words that leave even a shred of non-acceptance of homosexuality out of conversation WITH gay promoting people, is seen as affirmation and complete acceptance. We have come to the point where they even will not tolerate the word tolerate. It seems to me, when I was introduced to this Gay versus Christian situation, that GLBT civil rights orgs, are tightening a noose around tyhe necks of my Christian brothers and sisters. I just heard a story today, that a gay couple sued a Christian couple who were photographers for "opting out" of taking photos of the "wedding" between these two men (that engage in homosexuality). The Christians were ordered to pay over $6000.00 to the lesbians. There is a gay agenda.

 

[quatona]

The gay community and the Christian community are worlds apart on proper moral behavior, so why should Christians bother with homosexuality and those that engage in it?

Since the "gay community" and the "Christian community" overlap I don´t see much point in this question.

 

[cantata]

How well written.

Thank you.

From the vantage point of the New Testament, which defines what Christians should do, there is no homosexual Christians.

What about chaste Christian homosexuals?

All Christians sin. Are there Christian adulterers? Are there Christian divorcées? Then there are certainly Christian homosexuals also.

Though, I do firmly believe that if they continue to push ntheir way into Bible-affirming Churches, that homosexual Christians should build their own denomination.

Non-heterosexuals find themselves accepted by certain churches anyway, so there doesn't seem to be much of a need.

I would say, a new religion, but I do believe that engaging in same-gender sex acts does not make one a non-Christian. It just puts them out of leadership and authority within the Church structure. I'll show why a little lower.

You seemed to say above that there are no homosexual Christians. Now you're saying that there might be. Which is it?

According to that message of Christ, there are people that will claim to be Christians, but they are ravenous wolves in sheeps clothing. I think the Catholic Church has proven the sensibility of that teaching.

Priests fiddling little boys has little to do with lay Christian homosexuals. You suggest, yet again, that non-heterosexuals' motives are evil. Please can you acknowledge that they are just doing what they think is right, like you are?

You don't EVER see adulterers and the promiscuous, or liars standing up and procliaming how proud they are to engage in any of those sins. It seems to dwell exclusiveliy within the homosexual to demand that their sins and sinning never be considered. That makes them exist in a whole different category to other sinners. In fact, according to them, they are not sinning at all. They (and they alone) have a congenital excuse for it.

You'd probably call me promiscuous, and I am perfectly happy with that, thank you. Actually, I'm quite proud that I am able to work on my jealous feelings and cope with more than one partner at a time. So you're wrong about that - gay people are not the only people who are proud of something you regard as a sin.

"By their fruits you will know them." The fruits of GLBT culture is antithetical to Christian culture. We are comparing apples to apples.

The "LGBT culture" you fantasise about comprises only a small subset of the reality of the lives of LGBT people. I am non-heterosexual. I do not have unprotected sex. I do not go to Pride marches. I do not frequent gay bars or clubs. I do not use recreational drugs. I do not produce pamphlets to give to questioning young people. I do not hate men. In what sense am I part of "LGBT culture"?

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son . . ."

To save sinners.

You may want to read "why" Jesus had to come. It was not because everyone was lovng each other so much.

By all means, but it's no good saying it in such a way that people are alienated by your preaching.

I have heard many great points of view about Christians and what they should do, from atheists. And your is definately one of them.

Thanks.

Then we should be the best of buds. I love my fellow believers so much, I risk the rath and vitriol of non and anti-Christians virtually every time I interact with them.

It's spelled "wrath".

I think you have a rather skewed view of non-Christians. They are not all the same, just as Christians are not all the same.

I do feel thoroughly ashamed at my tactics sometimes. But I am just a man that takes umbridge at the "better-than-thou and more-enlightened than-thou" attitude and positions of the common anti and non Christian. They are the bullies. I just give them what they give. And I must admit I do enjoy their whining. It is a sin I do admit.

Again, this is rather skewed. Non-Christians receive a lot of ranting and rudeness from Christians on CF.

They literally claim to be a special class of people that's for sure. To a Christian, they are just a person that engages in sinful behavior. That behavior has come to known as homosexuality.

The word "homosexual" suggests that they are nothing but their sexuality.

You are mistaken, and/or progammed to see the opposition to same-gender sex acts as some kind of bigotry or (of course) the neologism "homophobia." That was invented to criminalize Christians and the Gospel. That is where the demonic enters into te picture. And, accurately so in light of scripture.

I don't use the word "homophobia", and nor do I regard every Christian who considers homosexuality sinful to be a bigot. I do, however, consider it bigoted to attempt to impose restrictions on non-heterosexual people on the sole basis of religious views that they do not share. That is my objection to the behaviour of certain Christians with regard to queer people.

ANY words that leave even a shred of non-acceptance of homosexuality out of conversation WITH gay promoting people, is seen as affirmation and complete acceptance.

No it isn't. I can promise you that if you use the term "gay person" (or even "homosexual person") rather than just "homosexual", no one will assume that you are "pro-gay". "Non-heterosexual people" would cover all your bases rather well, as well.

We have come to the point where they even will not tolerate the word tolerate. It seems to me, when I was introduced to this Gay versus Christian situation, that GLBT civil rights orgs, are tightening a noose around tyhe necks of my Christian brothers and sisters. I just heard a story today, that a gay couple sued a Christian couple who were photographers for "opting out" of taking photos of the "wedding" between these two men (that engage in homosexuality). The Christians were ordered to pay over $6000.00 to the lesbians. There is a gay agenda.

There are rules about refusing goods and services to people in a discriminatory way, and with good reason. Do you think photographers should be allowed to refuse to photograph interracial marriages too, if they so desire?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Since the "gay community" and the "Christian community" overlap I don´t see much point in this question.

The Apostles and Disciples dealt with this a long time ago.

Jude:

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you.

They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Thank you.

What about chaste Christian homosexuals?

They are called repentant sinners.

All Christians sin. Are there Christian adulterers? Are there Christian divorcées? Then there are certainly Christian homosexuals also.

Only homosexuals are celebrating their sins. In Christian culture, people are just people. The original civil rights struggle.

Non-heterosexuals find themselves accepted by certain churches anyway, so there doesn't seem to be much of a need.

Look at my quote from Jude. By their fruit you will know them. Celebrating sin and sinning is bad fruit.

You seemed to say above that there are no homosexual Christians. Now you're saying that there might be. Which is it?

People sin. People repent. In Christian culture it is not seen as something to celebrate with pride, but to be remorseful for and repent of. Odd, that anyone would call themself a Christian and preach and teach the clebration of sins. But in Christian culture we are to let the weeds grow with the wheat. But, we are not told to ignore the weeds.

Priests fiddling little boys has little to do with lay Christian homosexuals. You suggest, yet again, that non-heterosexuals' motives are evil. Please can you acknowledge that they are just doing what they think is right, like you are?

I acknowledge that gay priests have done what they did because they thought it was right. I'm sure they thought their child partners were also gay. I assert and hold fast to the truth that MANY non-heterosexual motives are evil. I am allowed that as a Christian that reads the New Testament teachings as important lessons. Only lately has that become a hate crime (again).

You'd probably call me promiscuous, and I am perfectly happy with that, thank you. Actually, I'm quite proud that I am able to work on my jealous feelings and cope with more than one partner at a time. So you're wrong about that - gay people are not the only people who are proud of something you regard as a sin.

This is where "Duh" takes on the scholarly. GLBT's are just thought of in this way by Christians. Christians that don't alter the Bible for politics.

The "LGBT culture" you fantasise about comprises only a small subset of the reality of the lives of LGBT people. I am non-heterosexual. I do not have unprotected sex. I do not go to Pride marches. I do not frequent gay bars or clubs. I do not use recreational drugs. I do not produce pamphlets to give to questioning young people. I do not hate men. In what sense am I part of "LGBT culture"?

Condoning and support. You also left off the part that you are a very decent person. As far as I can tell by your posts. I do not mind walking together the long walks that we do. But understand that I have the right to part company when you desire the wider path.

[quoteBy all means, but it's no good saying it in such a way that people are alienated by your preaching.[/quote]

I just present facts. The truth is not harmful to anyone but a liar.

It's spelled "wrath".

I know well the Gay community. It's spelled "wrath."

I think you have a rather skewed view of non-Christians. They are not all the same, just as Christians are not all the same.

I am only dealing with the gay ones here. They are many and always the same. Take for example the thread on gay theology. All that happened was the crowd gathered 'round and started screaming at me and laying traps. That is typical of that crowd. I know the adversaries of the Christian Community from personal involvment.

Again, this is rather skewed. Non-Christians receive a lot of ranting and rudeness from Christians on CF.

Paul knew this behavior all to well. Why is it, I do what I don't want to do, and what I want to do, I don't do."

It's tough deling with your adversaries, when you see them for what they are and what they want to do to you and yours. GLBT's are not the saintly group of monks you and others protray them as.

The word "homosexual" suggests that they are nothing but their sexuality.

That would be their fault. I just use the word in its proper context. I don't see anyone in any other way than I should. As a Christian it is in or out, or the need to get in or get back in. No labels need to be applied to sins and sinning except repent and be restorred. GLBT's refuse that and in fact demand that Christians shutup or be sued. They are the only sinners that proclaim that other than Muslims and Humanists.

I don't use the word "homophobia", and nor do I regard every Christian who considers homosexuality sinful to be a bigot. I do, however, consider it bigoted to attempt to impose restrictions on non-heterosexual people on the sole basis of religious views that they do not share. That is my objection to the behaviour of certain Christians with regard to queer people.

Homophobia is yet another neologism designed to force perversions onto and into the populace at karge and the Church specifically. We are not stupid people in any way. We know what is happening to us from the GLBT agenda and its adherants. It is very much a them versus us siutation. Nero was no myth. It is going to get ugly from here on out as GLBT's force Christians to submit to their social authoritative power. There is much malevolence in the GLBT community aimed squarely at Christians. Sodom-like eerily so.

No it isn't. I can promise you that if you use the term "gay person" (or even "homosexual person") rather than just "homosexual", no one will assume that you are "pro-gay". "Non-heterosexual people" would cover all your bases rather well, as well.

History shows your position is not solid. Especially when you have agroup of people that literally present that not saying no, means an absolute yes. Take gay marriage and the Bible as example. Anyone claiming that there is any promotion of "homosexuality" from the Bible is bearing false witness.

There are rules about refusing goods and services to people in a discriminatory way, and with good reason. Do you think photographers should be allowed to refuse to photograph interracial marriages too, if they so desire?

No. But inter-racial couples wouldn't have sued. They would have found a more accomadating photog. Muslims wouldn't have sued these Christians either (in America).

We Christians are going to have to deal with GLBT's the way the first century Church dealt with the same kinds of people then. I am going to be teaching this in Church soon. I am here at CF for research purposes. It is enlightening and reaffirming many things about the GLBT's versus the Church issue. It is very much a reality that Christians have been taught already (from the Gospel and New Testament writings) how to deal with it.