Love the Christian, hate Christianity

Great Debates
81

sigh
Well, my point is that stereotyping in itself is amoral. It is neither good nor bad.

If I were to say, “I’m watching a football game right now,” already in your mind is a picture of all sorts of things. A vision of me, male/female, shorter than 6’5" but taller than 5’2", most likely sitting in some sort of chair/sofa. I probably have brown hair since that is the most common. I am watching TV.

Or perhaps you are picturing the football game itself, a green field, white stripes, assorted players. In fact, you have a pretty damn good idea of what a football player on a field looks like. I don’t even need to describe one.

This, you might note, is a stereotype. It is amoral. No pronouncements have been involved. Similarly, if you review what my generalizations about christians were, you will find no moral pronouncements in them. It so happens that (2) and (4) are inconsistencies. I do not like inconsistencies, even in myself. (3) Is futility. (1) Is a good thing. These are my opinions on the generalizations.

I am not leaving it up to you to disprove them. I am not leaving it up to anyone. I do not actively apply them nor go out of my way to remove them. I am merely stating that when the term Christian comes up, I already have a set of ideas formed about them, and on those assumptions are set my personal morals.

To say that it is possible to exist without stereotypes is a farce. Language itself is impossible without generalizations. “Fuck” is just four letters which can be sounded in a single syllable. From this syllable comes a wide variety of meaning, especially when we consider “fuck” qua fuck, a word that, in all its conjugations, can take on every part of speech. There is a generalized case of the word fuck, and there are specific cases. In a general sense, we know when and how to use the word. In a specific sense, we know what the word is when it is used.

Incidentally, in case you didn’t catch the progression here, “fuck” can also have moral judgements placed upon it as a “swear word.” This does not invalidate the use of the word.

When I generalize about a group of people, you might also notice that I generalized about a group of people who chose to be a group. Africans, italians, etc, are merely born that way and no possible stereotype is especially justifiable. People who choose to be together are together for a reason: they share common traits. Others perceive those traits. They form generalizations. The end.

Incidentally, I’d be interested to hear your feelings on serial killers, the Crusaders, the members of the Inquisition. Nazis? Creationists? Modern pagans?

The fact that you even know who I am speaking of implies a common ideology.

Shall I continue?

82

As a general rule, we all generalize. :wink: I think Poly and RT and I went over this before. It is often a useful thing to do–if all the lemons you have tasted were sour, it is a timesaver to assume that the other ones you taste will be sour too. In this case, it would be false–there are sweet lemons. So there you see where generalizations will lead you astray, but nevertheless I think until you ran across that one sweet lemon that you would not withhold judgement on a general statement like “lemons are sour”.

I think generalizations, both negative and positive, are simply “shortcuts” and should be recognized as such. You don’t wonder whether every lemon you buy will be sour–accepting that the lemons you have known are sour and guessing that the next one will be sour saves you quite a bit of time. However, it’s not as accurate as testing every single lemon, and the consequences of misjudging a person due to generalizations projected on specifics are much worse than lousy lemonade. Now, if I meet a self-named conservative Christian I’ll probably assume he opposes abortion and gay marriage–defintiely a negative generalization (in my eyes) based on limited knowledge. I’m probably right, and it saves some time. Even so, if I firmly assume he opposes them, I may miss the fact that he supports gay and abortion rights, and my judgmentalism may end up alienating the very person whose support I most desire. (Of course, he shouldn’t generalize that all liberal pro-gay-rights sorts are assholes just because I am, but these sort of things do affect other’s opinions of groups of a whole, and as noted, they are sometimes useful.) Use them–I’m certainly not going to cease assuming that a fundamentalist will likely be pro-life and anti-gay-marriage–but with care, since you are just referring to just a template of a person, not the person him/herself.

A lot of us–particularly the gays and pagans and atheists–have faced a certain amount of nastiness from Christians. When the majority of your interactions with people who loudly profess a religion are negative, you tend to be suspicious of those who do so. If you’ve known a lot of sour Christians and few sweet ones, well, you may assume that the next one will be sour–given your experience, you consider it a likely thing to be true, and working from past experience can prevent you from being hurt the same way twice. However, judgment of a person based, not on that person, but on who you think they are can also lead to grevious misunderstandings and hurt feelings. Stereotypes can be useful AND harmful, both negative and positive ones. I’m not going to say “don’t generalize, ever”–sometimes it is quite handy. But you should be aware of your preconceptions and that they are not always, perhaps even hardly ever, true–not all Christians are predjudiced against gays, not all atheists hate religion, not all gays are promiscuous. Based on your experience, perhaps these generalizations seem to have a grain of truth; but it’s simply ignorant to assume that every X is Y based on a small sample, paricularly when you’re talking about human being, not lemons.

Sorry 'bout any preachiness. :slight_smile: Referring back to the OP I will admit to some philosophical differences with Christianity the way a lot of people practice it, but that’s a philosophical objection–I don’t consider it more predjudical or unthinkingly bigoted than disliking nihilism. I wouldn’t say I “hate” Christianity, except for some of the nastier and more wacko offshoots that hurt both the practicioner and everyone s/he comes in contact with.

Mithras the Sun-God
Is a solar myth they say,
But the Gnostics know
He obeyed the crow
And he killed that bull one day.

83

Esprix: you know, there are some very rude & “evil” gay folf- “Act-up” or whatever they are called, fer instance. Now, would it be fair to judge all gays by these few radicals? A few facts for you:

  1. Most Christians are not anti-Gay. Most Christian Churches are not anti-Gay. In general, however, the loudest, most obstreperous ones are. Hmm, why does that sound familiar? :smiley:

  2. Christianity has no lock on being “anti-gay”. Judiasm is also “about” as anti-Gay as Chrstianity. However, the most right-wing are the loudest- and are the most anti-gay (in general). Here in the USA we have a lot of Reform Jews, who to a very large extent, are not anti-Gay. The same could be held for the Muslim, or (according to other posters) the Hindu & other faiths. Again- the loudest, most reactionary wing of each, is usually the least tolerant.

By you tarring ALL Christian Churches with the same brush that should be reserved for only some, you are commiting the same act of intolerance as they are.

84

Okay, let’s lay some ground rules here:

[li]All homosexuals are, obviously, promiscuous and anxious to anally rape little boys, have no morality whatsoever, and wish to undermine the fabric of Western Civilization.[/li][li]All Christians are bigots intent on forcing their religious beliefs and legalistic morality on everyone else.[/li][li]Esprix has no right to post any opinions he may have on social injustices that directly affect him, but should instead concentrate on important stuff like how to resolve Florida’s election procedures, since we all know that the state is going to appoint a delegation of Great Debates aficionados to clean up the mess.[/li][li]Eve has no business using sarcasm when Jodi will read it correctly.[/li][li]Either Hastur or Jenkinsfan has no concept of verb tenses. (Personally I think Jenkies used the correct subordinate verb, and it just hit Hastur wrong in the context it was used, but that’s immaterial.)[/li][li]And I am the rightful King of England.[/li]
There, now you can all flame me, rather than each other. And if you can get past the generalizations, innuendos, and general hostility, you just might realize that nobody is really disagreeing with anybody else on the key issues being discussed.

By the way, Aynrandlover is correct: stereotyping is useful in making generalizations about a group of similar people, but should always be done with an “in general”, “some”, “most” or other weaselword to avoid invalid absolute constructions. And, contrary to the last post, Asmodean’s point was right on target. Reread it.

85
  1. Not me, or my Church. Wrong.
  2. Again, not true for me or my Church.
  3. Guilty- however, you can appreciate the Bible as a work of History (flawed, true), or of Literature- which it certainly is, without being in any sense a Christian. heck- i do not agree with Shakespeare’s politics, the way he framed Richard III is a crime- but I still appreciate the prose & language. Have you read Ecclesiates 3? Sound familiar?
  4. Guilty, at least to the 1st half- But don’t we all?
86

Well, I reread Asmodean’s post.

Now my brain hurts, and I’m none the wiser. Gee thanks, Poly. :wink:

87

AYNRAND:

You do realize that opinions have effects, do you not? The fact that I think members of the NRA are, in the words of Bugs Bunny, maroons, is neither good nor bad until I refuse to hire one simply because I assume, based upon my indefensible stereotype, that he or she is a maroon. Value judgments should not be based on stereotypes.

NO, actually, I don’t. If I say “I’m typing this right now,” which is merely an action, why would you have any reason to draw any conclusions about me as a person? I mean, I can obviously assume that a television is probably involved, just as the notification that I am typing presumably implies a keyboard, but beyond that, I conclude nothing, and I certainly make no value judgment.

All football games physically look about the same. So do all oranges and all bicycles. Recognizing this does not mean I am stereotyping football games or oranges or bicycles.

No, for the reasons given above, it is not.

Baloney. You’re whole post devolves into “why I don’t like Christians” and then you list your personal reasons in support of that dislike. The entire post is a moral judgment. Christians do this, Christians do that blah blah blah – and no recognition that not all (or even most) Christians do the things you complain about.

And, likewise, when I tell you that I think people who like Ayn Rand are idiots, I am not asking you to disprove that. I don’t go out of my way to apply that. I am merely stating that when Ayn Rand comes up, I already have a set of ideas formed about people who like her work.

I did not say it was possible to exist without stereotypes but, as a matter of fact, I do. In this context, a “stereotype” is “a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.) I see no need for them in the context of society, especially when we are stereotyping each other.

Nonsense. Words have specific definitions – sometimes more than one. They are not generalizations. A generalization would be “all four-letter words are swear-words.” We do not “generalize” a particular word to have a particular meaning, we define it so. And by defining, we are not making the meaning more general but rather more specific. If I say to you “gork,” you will have no idea what that means until I define it and thereby make it less general than “a four letter word of undeterminate meaning.”

But that is not a stereotype. “Fuck” is widely held to be an inappropriate word for polite usage; that is a value judgment upon the word “fuck” that is historically tied to its intimate association with sex, which in turn was not spoken of in polite society. So there is a reason, and a concrete one, for classing “fuck” as a “bad word.” There is no analogous reason to say “all women are stupid.”

So it is okay to say Christians are evil and Jews are cheap and Muslims are terrorists and Buddhists are passive and Rastafarians are drug users because people choose to belong to these groups? I can’t believe you would even say that? I was born a Christian. Since I am Christian by birth is it more or less okay to make indefensible generalizations about my faith than it is for someone who is a convert? What about my children, who will be raised Christian? Will you refrain from stereotyping them because they will not be choosing the faith they will be brought up in?

This does not logically follow. People who choose to be together are together for a reason: they share common traits. Yes – for Christians, a belief in the Christian God. Other people perceive these traits. Yes – you meet a fundamentalist Christain who tells you you are damned to hell and will not leave you alone until your threaten him with a gun. You therefore perceive NOT ONLY that he is a Christian but ALSO the traits of ungenerousity and obnoxiousness. They form generalizations. You generalize from the fact that you have met one Christian who is obnoxious and ungenerous and conclude that ALL Christians are obnoxious and ungenerous. This is, of course, an indefensible negative stereotype. The end.

Once again, a definition is not a stereotype. Let me say to you: football game; orange; bicycle. Does the fact that you even know what I’m talking about imply that you and I share a common ideology? Or just a common language?

That’s up to you. But I suggest if you do, you clarify your terms and recognize that “generalization” and “stereotype” are not synonyms and that neither of them is synonymous with “definition.”

Serial killers = bad because they are killers, not because they share some common trait. I have no general feelings about Crusadors or Inquisitors

88

[translation from Asmodean to English]
Statement A is true. The reverse of statement A, which is an example of statement A, is also true.

As you argue against statement A you provide further examples of statement A, thereby weakening your point as you continue to explain it.
[/translation from Asmodean to English]

I think.

89

Aren’t we? ESPRIX raises the issue of whether it’s good, bad, or ugly to say “all Christians this” or “all Christians that” and instead of checking yes or no we have a bunch of people saying “I don’t like Christians because they do X, Y, and Z.” This, to me, begs the question.

Why is it okay to say “all Christians shove their religion down people’s throats” but not okay to say “all Jews try to cheat people who aren’t Jewish” (A belief held by my late, unlamented grandmother)? Heck, both of them are based on personal experience and belief.

I absolutely agree. I think that if you know you are generalizing and further know that you generalization is sometimes (if not most of the time) wrong, then you shouldn’t make that generalization. Not only because you might be wrong about people, but because your erroneous assumption might legitimately offend them.

90

Actually, I worship Jesus Christ as God. I come from the Independent Baptist denomination which uses several references in the NT where Jesus says, “I and my Father are one.” Sorry, I’m too lazy right now to look them up.

<sigh> I wish Hastur did a better job of bashing Christians. I want a good reason for starting my very first Pit thread. :wink:

91

Hmmm, simulpost.

Actually, Jodi, I don’t believe this is accurate. It would be more accurate to say that you were born into a Christian family, and that as you grew up you continued to believe in a Christian faith. I don’t believe any of us are born to a particular religion - if that were true I would most likely be very confused, as my father is (was) a Mormon and my mother is a Presbyterian. But we do make decisions about how we will believe as we grow up, and you will raise your children in a Christian household, just as you were raised. That’s your choice.

My problem with Christians is that most Protestants that I have met seem to feel the need to witness to me. Either that, or they assume that I feel the same way they do, and make comments that I am presumed to agree with when I don’t. I worked in a place where one of the young women felt the need to remind me that “Jesus Loves You” when I was particularly serious-looking, something that always annoyed me. And then there are the folks like jenkinsfan who presume that since Christianity works for them by giving them what they need, it will also work for everyone else, and who appear to presume that anyone who isn’t a Christian simply hasn’t gone in to a Christian church and been “open to God.” I can say for a fact that some of us have, and that Christianity, as a belief system, simply doesn’t work for that group.

I exclude Catholics from the above generalization of my experiences because I have never knowingly encountered a Catholic who engaged in any of these behaviours. I have other problems with Catholicism, but that would be a whole other thread.

I try very hard not to tar all Christians with the same brush. Certainly I respect folks like you and Polycarp far more than someone who runs their religion down my throat with no better reason than that I’m going to Hell if I don’t convert.

enough weasel words for everyone? :smiley:

92

IMO, there is nothing inherently wrong with either generalizations or stereotypes; it’s when they’re used unnecessarily that problems arise.

I once suggested that I would not hire a Scientologist because I consider Scientologists untrustworthy. Someone pointed out to me, rightly, that this amounts to religious discrimination. (Spare me the discussion as to whether Scientology is a religion.) What he pointed out to me is that while it’s perfectly OK to hold a generalization or a stereotype, it is not OK to make a decision based on the stereotype when you don’t have to. In this instance, I should hire or not hire someone because that person is not trustworthy (or otherwise deserving of employment), not because of his membership in a class of people who I hold in general disdain. The decision should be based on individual characteristics, not on general characteristics of the individual’s groupings.

Of course, there are situations where a decision is necessary without having sufficient time to gather individual information. In this situation, the use of generalizations or stereotypes are justified because it’s better to make a decision based on a generalization which is probably right than completely at random. The real problem that arises, IMO, is when risk management types get into the picture and decide “the cost of an incorrect decision at this point is less than the cost of gathering further information that would decrease the risk of an erroneous decision, so no more investigation is necessary”. When individual lives or fundamental rights are at stake, cost of error discussions are offensive to me.

Of course, this is wandering way off topic. So I’ll stop.

93

dogsbody, yes, I do think Christianity has the answers to life or I wouldn’t be a Christian. I thought that was a given, but I certainly never meant to preach to you. I’m here to offer the Christian perspective the best I can. Nothing more. Unless you ask. :wink:

Poly, what’s a verb?

Was Esprix a figment of my imagination? Or is he just as busy as I am sometimes? :slight_smile:

94

DOGSBODY:

It is as accurate to say I was a Christian as a child as it is to say I am a Christian now. Both mean that this is the faith I did and do practice. True, I chose to follow the faith of my own volition when I was confirmed, but I was still on the path (no, not the path to salvation, necessarily, but just the Christian path) before I was confirmed. If you feel it is more accurate to say “I was born into a Christain household,” fine with me, but in the interest of strict correctness I then I feel obliged to say that I don’t think the house ascribed to any particular faith. :wink:

Y’know, I’m not even going to read this stuff anymore. It seems like most people posting here are not interested in deciding whether it is okay to extrapolate from the beliefs and actions of one subset (fundamentalism) the beliefs and actions of an entire religion (Christianity). They are interested in complaining about “all” Christians or “most” Christians. I’m not leaving the thread, but every time I see “my problem with Christians is . . .” I’m skipping down.

Thanks; I appreciate it, I really do. I just get a little tired of people deciding what I, as a Christian, must do or think or feel because of what a more vocal minority might do or think or feel. We are not all the same. A lot of us do not believe in proselytizing; a lot of us have nothing against gays; a lot of us are pro-choice. There is just far too broad a spectrum of beliefs held under the umbrella of Christianity for people to generalize about what “all” or “most” Christians believe.

95

::snort:: Okay, I deserved that. :wink: I was just saying that I don’t believe any particular child is born to any particular faith, which is why the race/orientation analogy holds. YMMV

But, see, that was kind of my point. Trust me, it isn’t just fundamentalists that I’ve had this problem with! But no, I don’t think it’s necessarily right to extrapolate in this way - the problem comes because those of us who are not Christian primarily only see those Christians (of whatever denomination - personally I’ve had Mormons, 7th Day, Christian Scientists, Presbyterians, Lutherans and, weirdly, one Episcopalean try to convert me) who are loud and obnoxious. Just like most of us who are not gay know only what we see of gay folks on the TV.

The problem comes when only the vocal minority is seen. To be perfectly honest, I only know my roommate is Catholic because she went to Rome to get her plenary indulgance this summer. The only other one of my friends whose denomination I know is Jewish. I can’t tell you what the faiths of the rest of my friends are, because it hasn’t come up. They’re not “in my face,” so to speak. So, since the only folks I automatically recognize as Christians are the ones who are in my face, and not those who live their faiths quietly, I have a tendency to generalize that “all” Christians want me to convert. I know it’s frustrating, trust me. That’s why I try not to do any tarring and feathering. (That and I don’t believe in hating anyone - it’s pretty pointless and a waste of effort, IMNSHO)

Speaking of Christians and not hating, has anyone seen Libertarian?

96

DAN:

  1. Not true for your church? You speak for everyone? Generalized case. Possibly bad, indeed, if a member was found to have those very traits that you didn’t know about. Happens all the time.
    2)Again, a stereotype. That you make it about “your” group doesn’t change anything.
    3)That’s ok, I’m guilty of quoting science books and shakespeare, but not the former to children and not the latter to people who don’t like shakespear.
    4)No, we don’t “all” do that. Generalization. Some of have loosened our morals to be sure we are living consistently with ourselves.
    The implications you gave were not necessarily bad, but case 1 and 2 are especially important. If, for example, a member of your church happened to do something terrible (and this happens from time to time to groups) and I were then to take your initial generalization and turn it back on you, suddenly things would be very different.
**Jodi**:
I never said value judgements were based on stereotypes. They are quite seperate. A specific act has qualities we find moral/immoral/amoral. When we make a generalization, we find that the qualities implied by that generalization are, again, moral/immoral/amoral. They meet, but do not cause. the other.

"I mean, I can obviously assume that a television is probably involved, just as the notification that I am typing presumably implies a keyboard, but beyond that, I conclude nothing..." But you did conclude *something.*  I conclude *something* about Christians, but not all things. No more than I have found justified. Incidentally, the typing might be a euphamism for using one of those speech to type devices. What, are you *assuming* I'm poor?

"All football games physically look about the same..." Yep, it sure *does* mean you are [stereotyping](http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=stereotype) these things. Perhaps you didn't understand when I said that stereotypes do not imply a moral judgement. I would like to focus on that for just a moment. Morality is a generalization in itself, but generalizations do not imply morality. "The reasons above" are redefining stereotype. If we all agree on a specialized form of the word, that is fine. Nowhere was this done yet.

"Baloney." No, I list the stereotypes I have, then proceed to explain the judgement I have made on those traits.

"...when I tell you that I think people who like Ayn Rand are idiots, I am not asking you to disprove that. I don't go out of my way to apply that. I am merely stating that when Ayn Rand comes up, I already have a set of ideas formed about people who like her work." Good. I would wonder if, perhaps, *you* have read any Rand, but it doesn't really matter. Of course, you didn't really say that, as was implied this was just an example. Feel free to say it, however. Many, many people would tend to agree.

"I did not say it was possible to exist without stereotypes but, as a matter of fact, I do." Then you proceed to quote a dictionary definition which *does* preclude morality. That is fine; this is also an accepted use of the word. My stereotypes did not imply morality; I explained my prejudices *after* I stated my generalizations just to be sure that the above use of the word did not apply.

"Nonsense. Words have specific definitions ..." Perhaps you truly believe this. I would be interested to hear how you define abstract words like love, hate, blue, and so on. Incidentally, I would also like to add that it is a stereotype that everyone agrees on the specific definition of a word you feel is clearly defined. You might follow the link above for "stereotype" in which no morality is implied. You will find a use of the term where no judgements are made.

"So there is a reason, and a concrete one, for classing 'fuck' as a 'bad word.' There is no analogous reason to say 'all women are stupid.'" Wow. One, the "concrete reason" for that classification is based on a stereotype about how people view the word. You might not find it suprising that I do not find it offensive at all. I am clearly unreasonable, or it is not so "concrete" as you posit. Two, "All women are stupid" is, as I have described, an inappropriate stereotype because women have not chosen to be women. You might note I mentioned that, as well.

"So it is okay to say Christians are evil and Jews are cheap and Muslims are terrorists and Buddhists are passive and Rastafarians are drug users because people choose to belong to these groups?" Jews are not cheap if you mean in the race sense. If you mean in the religious sense, there is no religious justification nor personal observation to justify that stereotype for me. If you have observed this behavior, then you are justified. Any stereotype that relies on, again, birth is not an acceptable stereotype. Others may do this; I have made it clear that I don't, so to continue to generalize that is in error. I will not repeat this.

What I said *does* follow logically. What you said, as well, can follow logically if I had percieved those things. Perhaps the entire concept of generalization from specific cases escapes you. A single instance cannot be generalized. Multiple instances can be generalized along the traits they share in common. The more data gathered, the more accurate the stereotype can be. This is used in every field of scientific research, in speech, etc etc. I hope I made it clear that I was raised through multiple faiths and that I continued to know people even after that.

"Once again, a definition is not a stereotype. Let me say to you: football game; orange; bicycle." A definition is not a stereotype. OK, I'll bite. Football game: what are the rules? How many people are playing? Is it grass or astroturf or touch football in a gym class? Orange: is it rally juicy? Is it a pale orange or a dark orange? How large is the navel? Are there seeds? Bicycle: Banana seat? Ten-speed? Trick bike?
These are all specific instances of a general definition. Perhaps you don't like banana seats; how convenient this isn't included in the definition.
Specifically, you are assuming that, even though I clearly stated the opposite, I was using the sense of the word "stereotype" which implied morality. Asmodean couldn't have said it better.

To end, I would note that I used the sense of the word stereotype which was a synonym of generalization. And no, definition is not a synonym of stereotype, it is a case of it.
97

Here is the definition referred to:

Clearly, you were trying to use the specific instance on a general case of the word.

Glad we can clear this up. Especially since I clearly explained what I meant by the word in the first place.

As far as the OP goes, I would hope it would be clear that I find it unjustified to stereotype homosexals as this is the “born-into” case.

98

Well, I was baptized and raised a Catholic. And even though I no longer go to church very often, I still believe in God and Christ and the angels and saints and some of the moral teachings of the church, most notably to do unto others as I would have done unto me.

BUT…it is my belief, that all religions are worshipping God, as they see him, and that they are ALL correct, because I don’t believe that God would punish people who died before they heard of the “true” religion, whether it’s Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hindu, Paganism, Wiccan, or The Church of the Holy Sweat Sock.

I try to do my best to treat everyone with respect. THAT is how I see Christianity, as trying to make the world a better place by being GOOD to people, and not to let the jerks bother me too much.

99

I get pissed when so many people assume that when someone claims that they love someone but feel that their actions are going to send them to Hell, they are lying. As I mentioned in Esprix’s Boy Scout thread, I personally know a person who honestly feels this way, and I think it’s insulting that people see nothing wrong with assuming she’s a lying hatemonger.

Yes, I know it offends you when people say that you will go to Hell for homosexual acts, and you have the right to say that to them. But if you incorrectly assume they hate you, how can you come to understand what they truly believe?

If someone truly hated homosexuals and felt that homosexual acts were a sin, would they try to talk you into being celibate? Wouldn’t they WANT you to go to Hell?

100

Gaudere commented, back at the beginning of this page:

Um, given the content of this thread, I think that’s an image I really don’t want to envision. :wink:

Jenkinsfan’s original comment to Hastur was:

Hastur responded:

Just for the record, my understanding of English syntactic construction, specifically sequence of tenses, would indicate that the verb “to worship” used in a subordinate clause dependent on “complained of being worshipped” would require the past tense, i.e., “worshipped” – and that was the source of my comment. I see, however, the point that Hastur was trying to make: the conceptual framework in which he operates, i.e., that the Personage to whom he makes his obeisance, i.e., Hecate, triune goddess, is as precious to him as is the Lord of Hosts of Jewish and Christian tradition to Jenkinsfan. And the extent to which the triune God of Christianity can be equated to the God to whom Jews give allegiance is a bit of semantic quibbling. Specifically, He is seen as Other, Holy, Creator by Jews, while to Christians, though being all these things, He has also revealed Himself in human form in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God and God the Son. (For the moment, I’d like to leave the Holy Spirit out of the picture; He represents an additional level of complexity this thread does not need.)

However, the comment that “this thread sure got crazy fast” is one I can willingly agree with. As Mike and the Mechanics once commented:

.

Esprix, your OP was inflammatory in a way I don’t think you intended, and I do really need to call you to task on that. I don’t recall any posts by Jenkinsfan on either board we both frequent on the subject of gays. Other than him, I think I can say with some assurance that no regular poster here is both (a) a Christian and (b) homophobic. Remember “Christianity and Love”? For three 15-page threads, the argument about whether being gay was sinful went on. Remember who backed your case? Me, Triskadecamus, RT Firefly, Jodi, all those “evil Christians” whom you indict. If, like us Episcopalians, you UUs are pledged to “respect the dignity of every human being,” then an apology for starting this monstrosity may well be in order.

With the exception of idiots like Phelps, demagogues like Falwell and Robertson, and those who are just plain ignorant of the facts, typically the conservative Christians (examples locally including Saint Zero and Lauralee) take the stance that they follow the guidance of the Bible, which does contain passages evidently proscribing homosexual acts, and address homosexuality as an attitude only in Paul’s comments in Romans and Corinthians and in Jude. And I chalk the latter up to ignorance and the former up to Paul’s own tortured personality, where he finds himself drawn to sin even as he condemns it. I noted above that some scholars have seen him as a gay person with internalized homophobia; it would be truly enlightening to see what a person who has been through that sort of self-condemnation would have to say about his work.

One might also point out (as I have in the past) that there is some rationale to even the obnoxious evangelistic buttonholers: if someone pushed you into a snowbank or a roadside shrub, you’d have a right to be offended – until they made it clear that they were trying to get you out of the way of a runaway truck headed for you, or what they saw as one, whether they were right or not. And it would be a pricky individual indeed who was offended by someone risking their life to save you from being hit, even if they were wrong about what was happening. The evangelists are trying to protect you from being hit by a runaway God.

For most of us Christians, you and Hastur and goboy and the rest of the gay posters are sinners only in the sense the rest of us are – people who try to do good but inevitably fall short of the ultimate expectations of God – who loves us and sets those standards as ideals to be striven for, not as grounds for condemnation. Too, as a UU, you ought to be well aware that whatever Ultimate Ground of All Being (Tillich’s phrase) the universe may have, It may manifest Itself to different people in different ways. The pagan Goddess whom Hastur calls Hecate, following in the Classic tradition of understanding her under maiden, fructifying lady, and wise old crone, SqrlCub’s unity of spirits animating the universe, and a paternal God who created all, is seen in all, and loves all and calls it good, are not far from being aspects of the same entity. Going too far in that direction constitutes creating the sort of weak soup I’ve complained about before – but J.B. Phillips’ comment and book title that “Your God Is Too Small” is apropos. Whatever you or I can envision and call by the name God is less than the reality of Him who loves both Hastur and Jenkinsfan and has apparently revealed Himself to them under different guises.

I was once told by someone I hold as very wise that “nobody can insult you or your beliefs. Whatever they say cannot hurt until you take it as an insult.” I think most of you who have posted here are reacting to insults, only some of which were IMHO intended. I have not walked in the shoes of any of you, and don’t know what matters to you and what hurts you well enough to say what was fair or unfair in your behavior. I do know it’s been counterproductive. Consider putting aside your own offense and trying to listen to someone from the other side with as much empathy as you can dredge up.