The Churches that set the essentials of the historic faith, still put homosexual practice a sin.
You have provided nothing to prove your claims, that they thought such teaching and practice was/is Christian.
No, again, you are missing my point.
I am saying that people who dissented from the mainstream view on this point, were not therefore considered to be "not Christian," no matter how much their behaviour or ideas were condemned.
The only argument concerning bullying are those which force their views on Christians which disagree with them.
No. For example, if you have a gay co-worker, and you either in words, or in visual images, or on social media that they can see, etc, share messages about how their marriage is not a real marriage, that's a form of workplace bullying.
"Our kids"? The parents of these kids, who disagree with you think those kids are their kids.
You've lost me here...
You have not provided any evidence for this.
What, that Christianity has never been a monolith on moral issues? The most basic glance at church history will show you all sorts of debates on moral issues, all down through the centuries. Some will seem peculiar to us today, because in our context they're non-issues.
But here's a contemporary example in my own church. If you talk to people in western countries on marriage issues and so forth, sexuality is the presenting issue. If you talk to our North African brothers and sisters, the hot-button moral issue around marriage is actually... polygamy. Because in their societies, both Islam and traditional practices allow for polygamy. So their raging debate is how to deal with converts to Christianity in polygamous marriages, and whether to force the break up of those families or not. And how to speak to wider society about the need for monogamy. Amazingly, there's a diversity of views. And - here's the kicker - none of them are claiming those with whom they disagree are "not a real Christian" for holding different views.
I am unable to fathom why you refuse recognize the distinction between people who lack discernment or are deceived by Satan and those who are satanic.
If one is deceived by Satan, to the point of doing as Satan would wish, is that not satanic? I think the distinction is one of degree rather than quality, at most.
Is "inappropriate contentography" some clumsy CF buzzphrase?
The filter appears to have edited what I actually wrote.
In any event, what you say is absolutely false. Such addiction even among pastors is a MAJOR, MAJOR topic within mainstream Christianity. If you think there is a "deafening silence," you need to get out more.
I don't see one tiniest fraction of angst or hand-wringing over it, compared to the angst over sexuality. If I were a cynic, I might be tempted to say, but hey, mainstream "inappropriate contentography" is mostly about the exploitation of women, so, that doesn't challenge the status quo nearly so much.
As to whether early Christians and Jews condemned both homosexual orientation and practice, I'd argue they condemned the practice but had no concept of sexual orientation. That is a much, much later (20th century) understanding. Basically, the ancient world saw people who had sex with people of the same sex as what we would call "straight" people so inflamed with lust they became undiscriminating in their desire. The idea of orientation in itself is a massive shift in our understanding of the human person (and human development).