Do you think that Svt4Him is one of those Christian Scientists that infiltrate organisations?
I think I had better start this out by pointing out I am an atheist lesbian so my question is not coming from anywhere in the issue really but I am really curious how people here would feel if a mainstream church organised to bring these folks breakfast during their protests? I understand it was the church they were protesting that did this but still, it got me wondering about whether it may be perceived differently from supposedly straight Christians and if so, why and would that be fair?
Just musing, I have no God in this fight after all 
Thylacine,
Well… this is opinion only… but I think it would be perceived differently.
(1) Many people are Christian in that they believe the Gosples, accept Jesus as the Son of God, and attempt to live good lives. This seems to me to be the majority of professed Christians. Not a lot of thinking involved, but quite a bit of sincerity.
(2) Then, some are Christian in that think they are the only ones with the knowledge of God, the Truth, and that they must attempt to try to change others to their point of view. This group is split in two. One type (a) is very judgemental of all others. The other type (b), is sincerely interested in helping others gain “accurate” knowledge of God and Christ. Number two is okay by me, number one makes me sick.
(3) Then, there are those Christians who are true Bible scholars, and are willing to adapt their beliefs to what the evidence shows them, without compremising their faith.
I would wager that many Doper Christians are of this last type.
With those definitions in place, it seems to me that the first group’s (1) attitudes towards many changing doctrines, ideas, and social mores are shaped, either largely or partially, by the very vocal number ones of the second group (2a), if they change at all. Not too many decades ago, many many churches would be seen by today’s Christians as very fundementalist (2a).
So, if a non gay church (1) would “come out” as it were, by showing acceptance and brotherhood towards a gay congregation, than the majority who make up the first group would eventually see things in a more reasonable light. And the 2a’s can bite me.
This is all just opinion, no cites. YMMV
I’m a pretty conservative Southern Baptist, so my views on homosexuality are tolerant, but I don’t approve of the lifestyle. I do have to say there response was wonderful. Please understand that those groups are far left in Christianity, and we are not all that way.
So, since you’re trotting out the old saw of “lifestyle”…
How is your heterosexual lifestyle? You know, you can stop being heterosexual through prayer. All you have to do is want to change.
You mean the non-gay Christian churches are less graceful and tolerant of those who disagree with them? :eek:
uhhhhh… tolerant?
Man, Southern Baptists are the same people who sent out letters to all the Hindus in Atlanta telling them that they needed to be “saved” because they worshipped “false gods”. Tolerant is something Southern Babtists ain’t. We Methodists have a joke about y’all. How come Babtists don’t have sex standing up? People might think they’re dancing.
As to the OP, that’s an uplifting story, Otto, but I wish you had chosen a better thread title. Gays are no better than straights the same way straights are no better that gays.
Well this is going to be one long-assed post.
First we have Svt4Him, the meaning of whose SN I will leave up to that individual to reveal in the interested of (ha. Poly will laugh at this!) brevity. Now then:
Though there is clarity either way (now vs. not), I think that was a typo.
I think this person is trying to make some assessment of all homosexuals based on whether or not gay Christians are always as fabulous as the ones in the OP. Sort of a “well they’re not usually so cheerful when people come to protest their very existence”.
Seems rather irrelevant to me unless my previous paragraph is spot-off, so to speak.
Ah-HA. “So by rendering aid to their persecutors, were these gay people assuring themselves that their lives are reflective of Christ’s?” This seems to me the sort of argument that ignores every non-gay sinner on earth in favor of the “just because they do good stuff doesn’t make them Christian” argument, which is lacking.
Polycarp, inasmuch as he is married with several adopted children, leads a life unlike that of Christ. Is it your contention, Svt4him, that being gay is sufficiently unlike Christ as to strike discord with the belief that to be Christian is to live according to how Christ did? If so, what would it take for a gay person to be Christian?
Bonus points, though, for comparing a gay person to a bank robber.
Now onto our next nugget of wisdom:
Why the use of quote marks? Is there some problem you have with the phrase that you require it to be in quotes? And (refraining from comment on the ex-gay bit, as you probably don’t know enough about the person to be able to cite what program s/he used, assuming a program at all and not a “miracle”, to “become straight”) in what way(s) was it heartwarming?
This is disgustingly odious. Aside from the sexuality? Is there something about the sexuality that somehow lessens the message?
Why?
No such generalized lifestyle exists except in the mind of those who do not approve of it … tell us, then, what is involved in the homosexual lifestyle, since you bring it up?
By these groups you mean those who came to protest, among other things, the gay church, yes?
I think we can be thankful, at least, that this latest rehashing of things is at least contained to one thread. Means a third as much typing, if nothing else.
I can’t help but think that one or two of those folks may be re-examining their take on homosexual Christians.
Wait a minute. That’s optimistic! Very uncharacterisitic of me…
While we’re in the business of good news, here’s something from the Australian Uniting Church, the third largest religious denomination in this country: earlier today, the Church voted to allow practising (i.e., sexually active) gays and lesbians to be ordained as priests.
Good stuff.
It’s possible, although if Flamsterette_X is anything to go by, I wouldn’t bet on it, since she apparently finds self-hatred and repression of one’s desire to love and be loved heartwarming but not acts that demonstrate Christian love, if they are done by those distasteful gay Christians.
I’m willing to give Flamsterette_X the benefit of the doubt. I’ve not seen her make anti-gay comments before. I think she certainly used clumsy wording that can easily be interpreted as anti-gay, but as this is the first instance that I’m aware of, I’d like to see her claification.
That was exactly my response. Sort of a vowel-missing, phoentic type of thing. 
Waiting to be Fucked by God
What an awesome name for a play or musical!!!
I hope F_X comes in and explains herself because she really came off sounding like a closet homophobe there. Actually, I don’t care one way or the other, but I have this list I’m keeping, you see…
Otto, even if you’re upset at someone, I don’t think we need to immediately start in on a new poster with the full-fledged Pit treatment. Everything in moderation is a good motto.
Incidentally, it so happens that the United Church of Canada, our largest Protestant denomination, is in favour of gay rights and testified before the House of Commons Justice Committee in favour of gay marriage. It ordains gay ministers and performs gay unions (and presumably gay marriages now).
However, a few churches in the UCC were so opposed to the church’s adoption of its pro-gay stance that they chose to leave. So I don’t know how entrenched these things can really be.
The Uniting Church in Australia is currently in a similar situation.
Church opens arms to gays, but others head for the door
It seems that there is probably a broad centre in the church that will accept the change as inevitable and fundamentally just and good, but there will always be those who dig in their heels and fight the change, or simply leave and join or form another church.
I have the same list: Posters to be made into Soylent Green after the revolution.
Sure I can explain. The title of this thread is “Gay Christians are better than Straight Christians” and then an example was used when these gay Christians acted in a way that is better than the straight Christians to prove this point.
I addressed two issues, although my handle apparently was more of an issue than my point. So I’ll address each of the two points. First, when it’s said that gay Christians are better, it’s not saying some are better, it’s saying all are better than straight Christians, and this simply isn’t true. My incident in Dallas was when we use to go and meet with the homosexual church in Cedar Springs, and some of the things that some of the people did were not terribly nice. One guy got pushed and smacked into a car driving by. Can I then say straight Christians are better than gay Christians? Post something like that here, and I could only imagine the response I’d get. Not only that, but the usual response is that we somehow deserved what we got, or we werre somehow wrong in what we were doing. I can honestly say it changed the way I felt about homosexuals, as well as made me learn about the Bible in a way I’ve never experienced before. And honestly, some of the stories I heard would be enought to make anyone cry.
My second issue is with the word Christian, and the connotation that word has, and how this act was ‘Christlike’. Outward acts, according to the Bible, are not what God looks at, it’s the heart. So my example of the bank is to show that doing a kind act is not in itself a show that God approves of any action, so how does this act by the ‘gay Christians’ make them better Christians than the ‘straight Christians’?
Svt4Him does seem to like to hammer on a point…
:rolleyes:
We got it the first time. Are you waiting for a retraction?