So Now We Have 'Gay Theology'?! - Article by Chick Publications

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2011
3,343
114
63
#1
So Now We Have 'Gay Theology'?!







First, it was Matthew Vines and his book, God and the Gay Christian. Now, a much more prominent "Christian" "comes out" publicly shouting down anyone who tries to present the truth. Well-known "evangelical" recording artist and social commentator, Vicky Beeching has just revealed that she is "gay." In a recent TV interview on British TV, she appears opposite evangelical attorney Scott Lively who attempts to present God's view on homosexuality. Beeching refused to hear his side, repeatedly interrupting right over the top of Lively's comments. Finally, the moderator “ran out of time.”

(Watch video on the WND website:Christian music sensation comes out of closet)

Lively has written extensively on the subject and recaps the history of the rise of the "gay" steamroller. He notes that, after the 1969 Stonewall riots, homosexual activists focused the movement to take down the opposition of any American institution that opposed them.
One of the first to fall was the American Psychiatric Association that bought the lie that homosexuality was no longer a "disorder," but a normal expression of sexuality. Since that first victory just 40 years ago, every other major opposing group has been conquered, including the Boy Scouts just a year ago.

The only organization left is fundamental, bible-believing churches. Most of the liberal, mainline denominations have caved, assisted by new Bible versions gutted of their truth on the subject.

Vines' book claims that Sodom and Gomorrah was only an incident of gang rape, not "sodomy," and that Leviticus 18 is old, outdated law. (This is the same chapter that forbids: incest, adultery, child sacrifice and bestiality.)
Neither Vines nor Beeching will tolerate questioning their basic assumption that they were born "that way;" that's how God made them. Sadly, many "evangelicals" have bought this lie. Even the pope has come out okay with being homosexual, just don't act on it.

Vines discounts the Old Testament statements, claiming that only recently has it been scientifically "discovered" that there are other "orientations" (genders) than male and female.

Lively is sounding a warning what to expect: “All of their battle-hardened activists and enormous resources are all directed at the church,” he says.

And church leaders have not been preparing for the upcoming attack, often ignorant of the issues. Beeching threw down the challenge in the London interview: “What Jesus taught was a radical message of welcome and inclusion and love. I feel certain God loves me just the way I am, and I have a huge sense of calling to communicate that to young people,” she said. The battleground for this lie is our young people.
But is her god the God of the Bible? When you “feel certain” of something, does it make it true? Devout Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, even Mormons “feel certain” about their gods, but they do not match the God of the Bible.

Her god is the same benevolent old grandfather doting on his precious children who can do no wrong. Sure, the God of the Bible is LOVE, but reject the gracious guidelines for His kingdom and righteous judgment becomes His only alternative. The key biblical concept here is called “affection.” Homosexuals talk about “attraction” and “orientation,” as if they have no control. But in his letter to the Colossians, the Apostle Paul instructs us to “SET your affections on things above, not on things on the earth.” God assumes we have control and requires that we use it.

Solomon’s proverb (4:23) commands: “Keep your heart with all diligence...,” again assuming we are not helpless with our affections locked into an “orientation.”

To counter the imminent attack, the church must first arm itself with God’s preserved words in English, the Authorized King James Bible. Modern versions have compromised His words, giving the enemy ammunition to create doubt in God’s viewpoint. Then we must speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) to our young people, guiding them in guarding their hearts and shepherding their affections away from the lie that God created more than two genders.

Click here for more discussion and products on why God’s solid word in the KJV is necessary to even begin countering the coming attack.
 
Mar 1, 2012
1,353
7
0
#2
Its not just gay issues.

Its women pastors.

Its works based salvations of, I chose God, I must be good to keep my salvation and if I sin I could lose my salvation....heresies.

Meologies...the study of me......name it claim it, its all about me and my health and my wealth and my works and worst of all....its about my sin.

Like..did Jesus only accomplish half of His task on the cross?

....and when you challenge these liberal christians ( their liberal ideology trumps their theology ) watch out. You will be called.....

backward

a bigot

not Holy Spirit indwellt ( their special Holy Spirit indwellment which they catagorize as ''fire baptism, the extra Holy Spirit )

unsaved

and worst of all....a......fundamentalist.

Argue against their poorly supported scripture perverting positions, using scripture and they say you are blind and unsaved or do not have their special annointing.

I am a white married male christian conservative, the least and last true minority, and hated by liberals worldwide.
 

gb9

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2011
11,781
6,355
113
#3
this is a great example of what I heard Mike Huckabee say: moving the standards to fit behavior instead of moving behavior to fit standards.
 
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
#5
So Now We Have 'Gay Theology'?!







First, it was Matthew Vines and his book, God and the Gay Christian. Now, a much more prominent "Christian" "comes out" publicly shouting down anyone who tries to present the truth. Well-known "evangelical" recording artist and social commentator, Vicky Beeching has just revealed that she is "gay." In a recent TV interview on British TV, she appears opposite evangelical attorney Scott Lively who attempts to present God's view on homosexuality. Beeching refused to hear his side, repeatedly interrupting right over the top of Lively's comments. Finally, the moderator “ran out of time.”

(Watch video on the WND website:Christian music sensation comes out of closet)

Lively has written extensively on the subject and recaps the history of the rise of the "gay" steamroller. He notes that, after the 1969 Stonewall riots, homosexual activists focused the movement to take down the opposition of any American institution that opposed them.
One of the first to fall was the American Psychiatric Association that bought the lie that homosexuality was no longer a "disorder," but a normal expression of sexuality. Since that first victory just 40 years ago, every other major opposing group has been conquered, including the Boy Scouts just a year ago.

The only organization left is fundamental, bible-believing churches. Most of the liberal, mainline denominations have caved, assisted by new Bible versions gutted of their truth on the subject.

Vines' book claims that Sodom and Gomorrah was only an incident of gang rape, not "sodomy," and that Leviticus 18 is old, outdated law. (This is the same chapter that forbids: incest, adultery, child sacrifice and bestiality.)
Neither Vines nor Beeching will tolerate questioning their basic assumption that they were born "that way;" that's how God made them. Sadly, many "evangelicals" have bought this lie. Even the pope has come out okay with being homosexual, just don't act on it.

Vines discounts the Old Testament statements, claiming that only recently has it been scientifically "discovered" that there are other "orientations" (genders) than male and female.

Lively is sounding a warning what to expect: “All of their battle-hardened activists and enormous resources are all directed at the church,” he says.

And church leaders have not been preparing for the upcoming attack, often ignorant of the issues. Beeching threw down the challenge in the London interview: “What Jesus taught was a radical message of welcome and inclusion and love. I feel certain God loves me just the way I am, and I have a huge sense of calling to communicate that to young people,” she said. The battleground for this lie is our young people.
But is her god the God of the Bible? When you “feel certain” of something, does it make it true? Devout Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, even Mormons “feel certain” about their gods, but they do not match the God of the Bible.

Her god is the same benevolent old grandfather doting on his precious children who can do no wrong. Sure, the God of the Bible is LOVE, but reject the gracious guidelines for His kingdom and righteous judgment becomes His only alternative. The key biblical concept here is called “affection.” Homosexuals talk about “attraction” and “orientation,” as if they have no control. But in his letter to the Colossians, the Apostle Paul instructs us to “SET your affections on things above, not on things on the earth.” God assumes we have control and requires that we use it.

Solomon’s proverb (4:23) commands: “Keep your heart with all diligence...,” again assuming we are not helpless with our affections locked into an “orientation.”

To counter the imminent attack, the church must first arm itself with God’s preserved words in English, the Authorized King James Bible. Modern versions have compromised His words, giving the enemy ammunition to create doubt in God’s viewpoint. Then we must speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) to our young people, guiding them in guarding their hearts and shepherding their affections away from the lie that God created more than two genders.

Click here for more discussion and products on why God’s solid word in the KJV is necessary to even begin countering the coming attack.
There's a fundamental problem with the above. Firstly, Christians need to realize that church is separate from state, so what's legal secularly and what's legal biblically are two separate things. This article blurs the lines between the two in using biblical emphasis on sexual sin to propagate the idea that homosexuality is morally equivalent to bestiality, paedophilia or rape; which it is not. The classification of several things as 'wrong' does not make them morally equivalent. If it did, then a child stealing a cookie would be just as sinister as a grown man raping a kid. Nobody in their right mind is going to suggest that an innocent child wanting a little bit of chocolate and cheekily sneaking some is morally equivalent to a man forcibly violating a young boy or girl, so why assert that a homosexual relationship between two consenting adults is morally equivalent to raping someone?

Secondly, many Christians will openly accept the ideas that for instance, adultery is secularly legal, since it's usually seen as a violation of choice to assert that adultery should be illegal, and since these same Christians seem to classify all sexual sin as morally equivalent, it would in fact be more logical to view the Christian position as the one that says 'we should just make bestiality legal if we make homosexuality legal'. This, however, is NOT the view of the general secular population.

There's no obligation for churches to regard homosexuality as absolutely fine in God's eyes; a religious institution has the prerogative to uphold it's religious tenets, but there IS an obligation for religious people to be bound under the jurisdiction of the secular law which tailors to the equality of all citizens. The distinction between church and state is there for a reason.

No homosexual with an ounce of common sense is saying 'churches have to throw out their beliefs about homosexuality being immoral', but any homosexual person I know IS saying 'homosexuality is a personal choice between two consenting people and we don't live in a church governed state, so we want to know why homosexuality is considered illegal at all'. The answer is that there's no intrinsic merit to classifying homosexuality as illegal, once we look past the church's position.
 
Last edited:

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,708
3,650
113
#6
There's a fundamental problem with the above. Firstly, Christians need to realize that church is separate from state, so what's legal secularly and what's legal biblically are two separate things. This article blurs the lines between the two in using biblical emphasis on sexual sin to propagate the idea that homosexuality is morally equivalent to bestiality, paedophilia or rape; which it is not. The classification of several things as 'wrong' does not make them morally equivalent. If it did, then a child stealing a cookie would be just as sinister as a grown man raping a kid. Nobody in their right mind is going to suggest that an innocent child wanting a little bit of chocolate and cheekily sneaking some is morally equivalent to a man forcibly violating a young boy or girl, so why assert that a homosexual relationship between two consenting adults is morally equivalent to raping someone?

Secondly, many Christians will openly accept the ideas that for instance, adultery is secularly legal, since it's usually seen as a violation of choice to assert that adultery should be illegal, and since these same Christians seem to classify all sexual sin as morally equivalent, it would in fact be more logical to view the Christian position as the one that says 'we should just make bestiality legal if we make homosexuality legal'. This, however, is NOT the view of the general secular population.

There's no obligation for churches to regard homosexuality as absolutely fine in God's eyes; a religious institution has the prerogative to uphold it's religious tenets, but there IS an obligation for religious people to be bound under the jurisdiction of the secular law which tailors to the equality of all citizens. The distinction between church and state is there for a reason.

No homosexual with an ounce of common sense is saying 'churches have to throw out their beliefs about homosexuality being immoral', but any homosexual person I know IS saying 'homosexuality is a personal choice between two consenting people and we don't live in a church governed state, so we want to know why homosexuality is considered illegal at all'. The answer is that there's no intrinsic merit to classifying homosexuality as illegal, once we look past the church's position.
Well you can ghetto-ize the Church into it's own corner at your own peril.
Just as the body (State) will run amuck if it disregards it's own conscience (Church).
 
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
#7
Well you can ghetto-ize the Church into it's own corner at your own peril.
Just as the body (State) will run amuck if it disregards it's own conscience (Church).
I don't want to reduce the Christian churches to piles of smouldering rubble, but neither do I want the church to reduce the tenets of the right of choice to what some particular denomination interprets from the bible. The taking up of a religious life, with all its personal laws, is the choice of the individual; but it is not the legal obligation of all individuals to take up a religious life.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,708
3,650
113
#8
I don't want to reduce the Christian churches to piles of smouldering rubble, but neither do I want the church to reduce the tenets of the right of choice to what some particular denomination interprets from the bible. The taking up of a religious life, with all its personal laws, is the choice of the individual; but it is not the legal obligation of all individuals to take up a religious life.
Right of choice for the individual taken to it's logical conclusion is a 'free for all' aka chaos.
There has to be some societal restraints, either dictated by man or God.
I'd rather go with God.
 
Aug 20, 2014
771
7
0
#9
[video=youtube;ecMDw0vM4E4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecMDw0vM4E4[/video]


There is no such thing as a gay Christian. Vicky Beeching calls Lively a bigot. In truth Beeching is a bigot because she turns her back on the Bible and calls every Bible believing Christian a bigot.
If she were secure in her faith and her alleged education she wouldn't feel the need to interupt Lively as he tries to make his point via satellite. She's scared. Because deep down she knows in all those years she's lived as a secret lesbian and what the Bible says about that, that she's damned unless she repents her behavior.

She's coming out to go straight to Hell. What a tragedy.
 
Mar 1, 2012
1,353
7
0
#10
There are christians who have sin challenges. Can a christian struggle with homosexual sins? Yes.

Can a christian embrace homosexual ways? No

Can a christian be an ex-homosexual? Yes.

Can a christian commit homosexual sins? Yes and not lose their salvation as well.

Can a christian live as a homosexual? No.

Can a christian excuse homosexuality? No.

Now all of these things can have a time limit to them so to speak. You can fall off the truck at some point but you MUST get back on if you are truly saved.

We are human and imperfect. We can fall for bad teaching and even get confused at times and lets pray this lady finds her way again, or finds Christ for the first time.
 
B

biscuit

Guest
#11
Just another Satan's disciple attacking God's Word.
 
Aug 20, 2014
771
7
0
#12
So Now We Have 'Gay Theology'?!

I just wanted to touch on that part of your opening as we address our concerns for what is indeed a push for gay theology, as churches turn apostate and not only allow gay clergy but perform gay weddings, that there is another heresy operating in the field as well.





While we hold Ms.Beeching in our prayers that she find Christ and gain salvation from her proud sin of sodomy, let us hold prayer for anyone who reads that abominable book and believes.

The devil's bible. Who would have ever imagined it would come to pass? Wherein a collective of sodomites would hope to publish heresy that proclaims the sinful behavior God calls an abomination is perfectly OK. Imagine the souls lost that read and believe. :( God forbid.

What a world.

 

Jimbone

Senior Member
Aug 22, 2014
2,734
836
113
44
#13
There are christians who have sin challenges. Can a christian struggle with homosexual sins? Yes.

Can a christian embrace homosexual ways? No

Can a christian be an ex-homosexual? Yes.

Can a christian commit homosexual sins? Yes and not lose their salvation as well.

Can a christian live as a homosexual? No.

Can a christian excuse homosexuality? No.

Now all of these things can have a time limit to them so to speak. You can fall off the truck at some point but you MUST get back on if you are truly saved.

We are human and imperfect. We can fall for bad teaching and even get confused at times and lets pray this lady finds her way again, or finds Christ for the first time.
I agree with all of your points and feel the same way. I always liked to explain it like this "does being gay send you strait to hell? No. At least no more than what just flashed through my head about doing with the girl who just walked by in the short skirt would. Being gay doesn't send you to hell. Loving your sin, hating God, and not accepting Jesus Christ, fully submitting your life to Him and His will, and not being reborn does that." With that said I agree with your points, once God comes into you as the Holy Spirit you can not perpetually sin anymore. It may take a week or years, but eventually if you are truly reborn, you will have to stop living in and loving sinful behaviors (which I do feel homosexual sex is). Not by you own will or choice, that would be impossible for a "dead in their sin" person to do, which is the whole point of why we needed Him in the first place. So am saying someone can stop being gay, or have to choose to, before they can come to Christ? Of course not, the only way to beat sin is with His power inside us to help (I guess it was called "The Helper" for good reason) us. At least that's how the Holy Spirit has guided my understanding of the subject so far.
 
Mar 1, 2012
1,353
7
0
#14
Its strange we even have to talk about homosexuality being a sin.

Let me be clear. Liberalism is satanic and a cult. When liberalism trumps your faith, you have severe issues....

James 4:4
 
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
#15
Right of choice for the individual taken to it's logical conclusion is a 'free for all' aka chaos.
There has to be some societal restraints, either dictated by man or God.
I'd rather go with God.
Right of personal choice to live your life as you wish as long as you do not infringe another's rights of personal choice is the tenet here. Being gay, consensually, does not infringe another human or animal's rights. Bestiality infringes an animal's rights. Rape infringes another human beings rights. Paedophilia infringes the rights of a child. Murder infringes the rights of another human being. Theft infringes the rights of another human being.

You say right of choice leads to a 'free for all', by which I assume you mean social chaos, without law. In fact, equal rights leads to exactly the opposite; social equilibrium, the freedom of rights for each individual, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or sex.

Again, the taking up of a religious life, with all its personal laws, is a choice undertaken by the individual, but it is not the legal obligation of all individuals to take up a religious life, with all its personal laws. A person's secularly legal obligation is to abide by secular law, which by definition is not affiliated with, prescriptive of, or biased towards any religious or non religious worldview.

Secular legislation is the practice of creating inclusive laws that are not based upon religious tenets but upon the premise of equal treatment for all people. The law recognizes the authority of no religion or belief system other than the law itself, and the laws themselves are based upon nothing more than this principle: equality of rights. That equality of rights is the same for EVERYONE. You might disagree with some of the consequences of that equality of rights, and that's your prerogative, but you are also bound by them, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

The law does not prohibit you from taking up a personal religion, but it does prohibit you from enforcing your personal religious laws (which stand outside secular laws) on others. Nobody says you have to be gay. Nobody says to have to be straight either. Why? Cause being gay or straight is a personal choice undertaken by the individual that does not infringe another's right to personal choice.

However, the law says you can't be a rapist. Why? Because rape is a personal choice that directly violates the rights of another person to personal choice.
 
Sep 10, 2013
1,428
19
0
#16
Secondly, many Christians will openly accept the ideas that for instance, adultery is secularly legal, since it's usually seen as a violation of choice to assert that adultery should be illegal, and since these same Christians seem to classify all sexual sin as morally equivalent, it would in fact be more logical to view the Christian position as the one that says 'we should just make bestiality legal if we make homosexuality legal'. This, however, is NOT the view of the general secular population.
I don't know why christians consider all sexual sin as morally equivalent since Saint Paul called homosexuality 'sin against the nature' and Saint John Chrysostom said that a prostitute is a little child compared to a homosexual. From these holy men I learn that adultery is sin while homosexuality is both sin and perversion (of the libido).

The view of the general secular population is that it should be legal to marry your brother or sister. Really! I asked a man who agreed with homosexual marriage whether he would agree with incest on same basis for the gay marriage, and he said "Yes! I think marriage between brothers should be legal".
 
Mar 1, 2012
1,353
7
0
#17
Sin is defined by God. Not man.
 
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
#18
I don't know why christians consider all sexual sin as morally equivalent since Saint Paul called homosexuality 'sin against the nature' and Saint John Chrysostom said that a prostitute is a little child compared to a homosexual. From these holy men I learn that adultery is sin while homosexuality is both sin and perversion (of the libido).

The view of the general secular population is that it should be legal to marry your brother or sister. Really! I asked a man who agreed with homosexual marriage whether he would agree with incest on same basis for the gay marriage, and he said "Yes! I think marriage between brothers should be legal".
Well that man was obviously not representative of the majority, seeing as I don't see mass movements for incest to be legalized. I once heard a Christian person say 'a child taking a cookie without asking is just as bad as a paedophile raping someone, cause they're both sin'. Using some wingding that belongs to a group to define the views of the entire group is like finding a blood egg and coming to the conclusion that every egg is a blood egg.
 
Aug 20, 2014
771
7
0
#19
I was a member of a Christian forum wherein a man who claimed he was transsexual and a humanist argued there is no such thing as morality. And that sex between brother and sister is perfectly natural when it is consensual. And of course he was gay. While zoophilia, aka beastiality, was OK too. Because the animal was unable to vocally consent. But if it did not want to have sex it would, like all animals, possess the capacity to object by physically assaulting its rapist.

They believed all relationships should be allowed by law and to marry.

And they promoted this in a Christian forum without censure.

I don't know why christians consider all sexual sin as morally equivalent since Saint Paul called homosexuality 'sin against the nature' and Saint John Chrysostom said that a prostitute is a little child compared to a homosexual. From these holy men I learn that adultery is sin while homosexuality is both sin and perversion (of the libido).

The view of the general secular population is that it should be legal to marry your brother or sister. Really! I asked a man who agreed with homosexual marriage whether he would agree with incest on same basis for the gay marriage, and he said "Yes! I think marriage between brothers should be legal".
 
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
#20
I was a member of a Christian forum wherein a man who claimed he was transsexual and a humanist argued there is no such thing as morality. And that sex between brother and sister is perfectly natural when it is consensual. And of course he was gay. While zoophilia, aka beastiality, was OK too. Because the animal was unable to vocally consent. But if it did not want to have sex it would, like all animals, possess the capacity to object by physically assaulting its rapist.

They believed all relationships should be allowed by law and to marry.

And they promoted this in a Christian forum without censure.
Again, one wingding you attribute to a generalized group doesn't in any way represent the views of that entire group you create. I could say 'one black guy said once that all white people should be euthanized'. Is that what all black people think??

Seriously. Your arguments are utterly ridiculous.