True, and I guess this is central to this debate. My own tradition is comfortable with the notion of a plurality of Truths, as opposed to a single one. What I was worried about was that this concept didn’t exist in more conservative Christian traditions, making discussion and debate impossible.
Thanks to this thread, I understand things a little more clearly – while in traditional Christianity, there is one Absolute Truth – in the form of the Christian God – there’s a plurality of interpretations of that Truth, a plurality of approaches to it.
I guess I wanted to make sure evangelical Christianity wasn’t as extreme as it looks from the outside, as black/white. As a religious person myself, I can understand faith, but not the attitude that things either are or aren’t (I have the same problem with some of the more extreme atheists on the board), and I suppose I was looking to make sure there was space between the two.
Well, thanks for clearing that up. But for the record, I’m very proud of the choices he made in life. Nowadays, he helps run a gay youth organization that, among other things, counsels young people away from suicide, and helps educate them about safe-sex. He’s devoted his life to helping others.
If you mean becoming Christian, the answer is still no. If I was interested in becoming Christian, I would simply have joined one of the more liberal denominations.
To be a person of faith is to trust one’s own intuitive understanding of the universe, to some degree. We’re dealing in the realm of things that can probably never be proven or disproven, so we have to rely on intuition as a spiritual sixth sense.
And the Christian worldview, even as expressed in its most beautiful and loving forms, does not fit my perception of the universe, it doesn’t match what I understand about this world. It feels like it’s missing several vital pieces of the puzzle, for me, though I recognize all any of us can have is a partial vision of what could be called the Infinite.
Which brings us back to wall-elephants and rope-elephants.
I have a hunch that Tris’s post was addressed to **Puddleglum.
I’d just like to mention an online friend, Rob (who posts as Roblynn over on the Pizza Parlor, the name having the same connection to him as does tomndebb’s, and for the same reason).
Rob is a Biblically oriented Christian who is convinced that gay sex is a sin condemned by God in Scripture. However, he belongs to a church that reaches out to gay people (and not necessarily with the explicit purpose of trying to change them), spent a weekend with a close friend who had “come out” and left his wife, discussed at length that friend’s situation with us – and the gist of the message was not that he was concerned for the friend having sinned against God by taking up with a gay man, but rather two issues: what his doing so had done to his wife and children, and the abusive nature of the friend’s new boyfriend. He’s shown great respect for Homebrew and JayJay as people when they’ve discussed their thinking on sex over there, while disagreeing with them and with me on what Christian morality says about it.
If more of the gay-is-wrong Christians had the sort of heart and thoughtful nature that Rob has, the world would be a much nicer place to be, for all of us.
Thanks. It does help, although the novel was less a motive for starting this thread and more of a realization that, on some level, I had come to hate evangelical Christians for everything I’d seen, and this worried me because I feel so strongly about the importance of tolerance and compassion.
As for the novel, it’s growing out of a short story I wrote years ago. My views in those days were very simplistic, and I hadn’t yet learned to give my characters an identity of their own. In that first version, my character just converted out of the religion – it seemed the logical route, at the time.
As my views have become broader, and my skills as a writer have developed, I realized good characters have to take on an existence independent of their authors, and that the one I had created would not be likely to “convert out.” As silly as it sounds – I realize my character is fictional, of course – it would almost feel like imposing my beliefs on another person.
At the same time, it was hard to understand the evangelical worldview. I didn’t exactly get a good image of Christianity growing up – my hometown, where the story is set, is what comes to mind when people hear the words, “white trash.” Most of the families I knew were passionately evangelical and happy to preach – they were generally Baptist or Jehovah’s Witnesses.
These families were also usually nightmares for the children – by the time I was 18, I had heard dozens of cases of sexual abuse, far more of physical abuse – and alcoholism and gambling addiction were almost universal.
Coming out as gay, in this context, was a life-or-death situation. We usually found each other by accident or intuition, and for most people, coming out to their parents meant risking death.
Not surprisingly, the hypocrisy and the religion became linked in my mind, and it wasn’t until I met some members of UU Church that I was comfortable spending any time with Christians at all.
Writing this story, I came to see my own prejudices, and that’s why I wrote the OP – to try and put some of these prejudices to rest.
…unless, of course, it was actually an inquiry as to whether God letting gay people into Heaven would cause the person apostrophized to have an orgasm?
Well, shaving and getting a tatoo are sinful, according to the book of Leviticus. I think the two biggest biblical objections to transexualism (male to female transsexualism, at least) would be that it (might) violate the commandment for a man not to wear woman’s clothing, and it violates the prohibition against castration.
The first commandment I mentioned (which was why I included the “might”) would depend on whether or not (and I don’t know the answer to this…I’ve seen things suggesting either) the post-operative transexual actually halachically changes their gender…you know, is a man who’s had the operation to become a woman, is this person now actually a woman, or is this person still a man, who now appears to be a woman. I’m not qualified to answer that.
IMO, one of the key differences between Fundamentalist/Conservative/Literalist Christians and Moderates/Liberals is that the F/C/Ls seem to desire political power to impose their own values and views on the populace. If M/Ls were to try to combat this in the same arena, it could and would be argued that they were just doing the same; attempting to wield political power in order to push their agenda.**
I see your point. However, by not speaking out, the Liberal and Moderate factions are essentially saying “yes, the Conservative faction DOES speak for Christianity.”
The Conservative elements can lay claim to that power because they have appointed themselves the “Voice of Christianity.” By not challenging that claim, the Liberal and Moderate elements have silently agreed to the agenda that Conservatives put forth.
If all the above it true, then Christianity is intolerant of homosexuality. Now can you see why I and the other gay men and women on this board antipathy toward Christianity in general and the phrase, “Lover the sinner, hate the sin” ?
I tried unsuccessfully to get the link, but the Episcopal Bishop of Alabama and his Suffragan (assistant) Bishop issued a formal statement to their churches and to the press denouncing the demonization of gay people by the Chief Judge and the other people who have been calling homosexuality intrinsically evil.
I’ve written letters to the editor on the sorts of issues we’ve discussed, but they don’t get published.
The Episcopal Church as a whole is trying its darnedest to be an irenic voice that says that everyone deserves respect for their intrinsic humanity and should not be condemned for who they are, explicitly including gay people. But saying that is nowhere as controversial as the latest maunderings of Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell, and tends to be two paragraphs on page 43 of the paper.
And it seems like speaking out to a cross-cultural community on what is supposedly the third most popular non-special-interest bulletin board site on the Internet is doing more than a little bit towards accomplishing that alternative voice you speak of, Freyr.
Besides which, I’ll call Homebrew and JayJay to witness that I’m saying just about the same things I do here over on the Pizza Parlor in the appropriate forums, for what good that may be doing.
Trust me, we’re trying. But voices of reason and compassion tend to get swallowed up. Our only hope is that after the earthquake, wind, and fire, that still small voice will persist.
Dunno – I’m merely citing an IIRC of a comment made in, I think, ATMB a while ago. (But you’ve got to admit that it does reach quite a large number of people on quite a wide cross-section, even if the ordinal is not accurate.)
I do hereby affirm and aver that Polycarp does indeed go above and beyond the call of duty in trying to knock some holes into the rather rigid roof of that wretched hive of scum and villainy (I’m kidding! I’m kidding! Star Wars allusion! Timely, see?) and let in some direly needed sunlight.
Although I must say, Poly, that they have in the past managed to get on even your nerves, judging from certain posts whose tone seemed to veer from your usual Buddha-like serenity.
Why is it anyone else’s business? I mean, really. Why are people so concerned with who is in love with who?
See, when I was in school, of course we’d giggle if we saw the word “gay” in a book, or say-ohmigod, they’re gay! But we’d say the same thing if we saw the word “virgin” in a hymnal, or something like that. Typical elementary school kids giggling over anything to do with sex.
puddleglum-the reason you find it “icky” is because you’re not gay or transgender. I think when most people think of icky, they think of themselves doing it. I mean, it would be weird and icky for me, but not for someone who’s gay.
But really-I mean, when I was in school also, we were always taught-mind your own business! In other words, stop asking why so and so was in trouble, stop pointing out that someone did such and such. Does it concern you? No? Then don’t worry about it, because it’s NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!
I mean, d’uh. What difference does it make, since it doesn’t concern me?
Just wanted to say, I appreciate all the good work.
It’s my view that history tends to be two steps forward and one step back. If you take a very broad view, there’s a lot of reason to be optimistic.
I mean, here we have several sects of Christianity, and groups within those sects, arguing peaceably over the issue of (for instance) gay marriage.
Fifty years ago, there would be no debate – openly gay people in every Western nation except France would be in jail.
A few hundred years ago, we would most likely be put to death.
Five hundred years ago, the religious pluralism required for a debate of this kind wouldn’t exist. Anything other than the status quo would have been heresy, and settled by violence, not discussion.
The small voices of sanity might sometimes be hard to hear, but they sing more steadily, and sooner or later, they do get heard.
