Gotcha. And agreed.
But sometimes, it’s hard to know who is christian and who is Christian, if’n ya catch my drift.
Well, yeah, self described, or at least however places like the CIA World Factbook and books like that figure out who’s in what religion. A lot of these people who say “I’m Catholic” or “I’m Lutheran” might not really strongly believe in the religion, and think church is the waste of a Sunday, but I think that’s true of most Christians in the U.S. too. What’s the term? “Christmas and Easter Christians”?
“Darnit, Martha! Every time I go to that church, he preaches the same sermon!”
Saved, I hope I have read you wrong. But if I haven’t, this strikes me as exactly what gobear is talking about.
This is pretty much the high-water mark of the level of charity that most Christians are willing to extend to gays: ‘we love you, and we want to help you out of the difficult situation of being homosexual, which by the way is a perversion and an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.’
Being gay in America would be a much less difficult situation, of course, if evangelical Christians, through their loving organizations such as the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and all the rest of the Nine Commandments Lobby, didn’t put so much energy into making life difficult for them.
It’s a lot like hitting someone with a hammer and saying, “we love you, and if you change, we’ll stop hitting you.”
Well, OK, let’s go with a stratified (if still less than scientific) sample. We have a pretty good idea of the relative numbers of the various strata of Christianity in the US. If we can get a handle on the attitudes toward gays within each stratum, then we’re home free.
Stratum 1: Evangelical Christian Churches
If I join a random evangelical church, what are the odds that I’m going to be happy there, if I advocate equal rights for gays in the secular sphere (no job discrimination, domestic partnership rights, etc.) - even if I agree that homosexual conduct is inherently sinful?
Exactly. So much for Stratum 1.
Stratum 2: Mainline Protestant Churches
Issues surrounding the acceptance of gays have been swirling in many of the mainline denominations in recent years, and all one has had to do to get a feel for where things are is to read articles about the debates, and count the votes. Opposition to acceptance of gays in mainline Protestant churches is still quite strong.
Stratum 3: The Roman Catholic Church
The RCC is very much a top-down church: it says homosexual conduct is immoral, and that pretty much settles the issue in their church.
Those three strata don’t completely cover the waterfront, but it’s close enough for government work.
I can’t speak for Polycarp, but I’ll point out that someone’s been supporting the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, the Concerned Women for America, etc., etc; and essentially nobody in the evangelical Christian world’s speaking against these people.
Okay, the Lord I follow was one who taught stuff like “Judge not, lest you be judged,” “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and (this one’s an indirect quote) “Do not be like the Pharisees, who make their rules into a wall between others and God, while failing to see that they worship their rules and not the God behind them.”
Gobear is right; that doesn’t describe the majority of people who self-identify as Christian.
It does describe a bunch of people whom I would call Christian, including SIN and a couple of others on the Parlor who consider homosexual practice an abomination but who would never stand in judgment over people who practice it, merely describe their understanding of what God says (being fully aware that others may hold different interpretations) when the topic comes up.
That’s being honest, and understanding in a way.
It’s been my experience that the majority of mainline Christians (not hard-line evangelicals) have not been exposed to “normal” homosexual people, and, when confronted with the problem of how to deal with gay people in their lives in a practical way, while they may have a touch of “yuck factor” in their views, they can get beyond that emotional reaction to a sense that God does not reject gay people, and if it’s a sin, as God’s word would seem to indicate, it’s their (the gays’) sin to contend with, and they (the Christians) have enough to do dealing with their own sins without taking on someone else’s to judge.
Obviously this does not apply to some groups, with Falwell a prime example of those who stand in judgment.
This state of affairs does not correspond to what happened in the past, where usually there was absolutely no intent to understand, but rather to define as sin and sinners and to judge. Gobear is quite accurate on that.
Can we move on from there?
Reading back through the posts-I do see-I was indeed mistaken.
gobear-I’ve always liked you and consider you a friend-will you accept my appology? I guess I just don’t like to think that the majority of a religion that should be preaching love and acceptance are so wrong. It does sadden me, a great deal, and I guess it’s a case of wishful thinking.
I will say, on the other hand, that the majority of Christians I know, are basically neutral-meaning they don’t think it’s good or bad, just something like being left-handed, and a few that I know of (my mom, my sister, my professors, etc etc) basically feel that homosexuality does need to be addressed as far as persecution and rights. And then there are some, like my father, who really DON’T think it’s right, but reserve that it’s strictly none of their business, and really don’t care.
So I was wrong, and I appologize.
Andros,
Your depiction of the “Christmas and Easter Christian” is spot on. Those who hear the same sermon or two each year don’t get much of a feel for what goes on in the church. I suggest that this is even more the case with those outside the scope of Christianity who look at “nominal” Christians as being the witness that God desires.
I do not expect to pursuade anyone here to change his mind about the Bible, God, Chrstians, sin, etc. What I had hoped to do was at least clarify the true definition of Christianity.
Maybe, in time, some who read this will give a second thought to what that definition truly is.
SIN
It’s OK, Guinastasia, we’re cool. I also apologize for my intemperate outburst.
Saved in 1973
I do not expect to pursuade anyone here to change his mind about the Bible, God, Chrstians, sin, etc. What I had hoped to do was at least clarify the true definition of Christianity.
Maybe, in time, some who read this will give a second thought to what that definition truly is.
[/quote]
Except that you have failed to give us “the true definition of Christianity” in a specific Christian=— manner. What is it?
MrV, RT, Poly, thank you for articulating more clearly than I can the effects of the blind condemnation of gay love by the Christian mainstream.
As always, Guin, you’re a class act.
:o
You guys.
Yes, and for a lame, weaselly excuse, I offer PMS. 
I guess that my biggest problem with many evangelicals is that they refuse to admit gray area. I realize that the whole “unwavering faith” thing is a biggie in that belief system, but those of us who are more liberal christians have this thing about admitting that there’s actually gray area.
So I manage an email list for gay teenagers. Yesterday we had a post on the youngest list (13-17) that was from this guy basically saying that “his father” was a biblical expert and thought that being gay was a horrible sin. The best part about the letter was that it read like a 40 year old who didn’t have much exposure to teenagers thought teens would write. Which I believe is the case, but anyway. The deliberate misspellings were hilarious. He was summarily banned, but I have a lovely letter from him about my “day of reckoning.”
And I still remember with great disgust the night that a few “friends” of quietgirl and I tried to perform an exorcism of our homosexual demons.
In my mind, both of these instances illustrate the worst of “Christianity” as exemplified by Pat Robertson.
I have definately had to struggle with my Christianity because of being a lesbian, but I don’t think the two are incompatible. And the worst thing about it in my mind is that I can’t really explain how I reached the conclusion- I believe in a very personal relationship with God, and it’s hard to explain the steps that you went through in this relationship on more than the broadest terms, even in retrospect. It’s unsatisfactory, but I also think it necessary. I’ve always thought that a faith that isn’t struggled with isn’t faith at all, and so frequent questioning of my beliefs makes sense to me.