Love the Christian, hate Christianity

[Gaudere]

Yeah, you’d think so. But the fact is that if Fred Phelps says “God Hates Fags” and Polycarp says “God Loves Everyone,” people are not going to be talking about what Polycarp sayss.

Well, Polycarp is not a Big Name outside of our little circle. But seriously, there are a lot of very vocal nasty-type fundamentalist groups, and the opposition I see to them is by far secular, not Christian. I know moderation doesn’t sell as well as extremeism, but moderate/liberal secular groups do seem to get press in these cases. Heck, I’d figure Christians opposing something another Christian says would be a lot more interesting news that secular groups opposing them–y’all know those Godless heathens just like to cut down the followers of the One True Way anyhow, so it’s not like it’s surprising.

. I see no reason for people to assume that “silence means consent,” especially when it is obviously in their own interests to assume that silence means a lack of support.

I dont’ think it’s within the extreme conservative Christian group’s best interest to assume that they don’t have the vast unspoken support they think they do. I think it’d take a lot of wind out of their sails to realize a lot of other Christians think they’re full of it. Right now, they’re pretty smugly sure they’ve got support, and those Christians who don’t know better may easily think “well, I guess nearly all the Christians think X, so I better think X too” (or at least give it much more serious consideration than they would otherwise). So it bolsters those more sheep-like among their followers, and draws in others by imagined “peer pressure.” And non-Christians who don’t know better see very vocal Christian groups gay-bashing and assuring their followers of the wide-spead silent support for their ideas, and don’t see anyone saying, “Hey! You don’t have most Christian’s support!”

[Guinastasia]

You know, I always saw HTS/LTS as this:
I love my grandmother-however, she has many views that annoy the hell out of me, and she can be a big pain. I HATE the fact that she uses racial slurs-that is her sin. However, I do love HER, because she has always been good to me.

See? I think that’s what it means. You may have a family member who has a drinking problem, and you hate that they get drunk and do all kinds of bad things. But, just the same, you love that person. (Let’s say it’s your son.)

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by aynrandlover *
But, since you cannot divorce the person from the act, any attack on the act will attack the person.

Well, I guess it depends on how you define attack. I think there is a vast difference between taking Esprix aside and saying, “Gee, you know, you really shouldn’t be gay” and seeing what he says about the issue (and if you can’t come to an agreement, just going your separate ways) versus really attacking him, slipping him a mickey, dragging him behind your pick-up truck, and leaving him hanging on a fencepost somewhere in the foothills.

If you are saying those equate – I must disagree.

This makes more sense:

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
Such love is to preclude judging one’s fellow, the only allowable negative being to strengthen one’s brother or sister in the faith by gentle guidance where he or she seems to be falling astray.

Not quite a complete sentence, but I hope you get the idea.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
You know, I always saw HTS/LTS as this:
I love my grandmother-however, she has many views that annoy the hell out of me, and she can be a big pain. I HATE the fact that she uses racial slurs-that is her sin. However, I do love HER, because she has always been good to me.

See? I think that’s what it means.

Uh, I don’t see. You love them for their actions in “I do love HER, because she has always been good to me,” but don’t hate her for her actions, as in, “she uses racial slurs.” Unless you mean “I love my grnadmother because she is my grnadmother, period; everything else is merely icing on the cake,” then I guess everything is fine, but I’d hate to be loved in that sense. Kinda takes the beauty out of the feeling, wouldn’t you think?

If you mean, it is OK to hate things but not people, then I guess I agree because no harm is done and it is an externally meaningless hate. As soon as you intend to do something about the hate, external meaning is ascribed to it and you find yourself punishing people you love! Clearly a bad way to go about things.

Now, LTSHTS could be looked upon as an extention of punishing a child for behaving “poorly.” That is, we are hoping to impose our value-system onto our children by negative reinforcement(in the case of punishment, I’ll leave the positive reinforcement out to keep with the topic at hand). This is considered acceptable so long as no permanent or excessive physical damage occurs. To extend this to the current thread, LTSHTS is done out of love for all mankind. Any takers? [warning! do not agree with this statement!]

[Ptahlis]

*Originally posted by Jodi *
**See, the other question this prompts in me is what, precisely, you expect more conservative Christians to do.
**

Ah Jodi, I wish I could come up with an answer that would satisfy everyone here. As I said above, it’s the effects of LTS/HTS that bother me more than the philosophy per se. Assuming for the sake of argument that all these folks are opposed to the discriminatory philosophies of prominent fundamentalists, I would wish for them to be more of an active presence in the media with regards to those differences. When I hear religious radio, (and I admit that I am not a regular listener, but I am an occasional one) I hear either fundamentalist party-line broadcasts where the callers are all basically in agreement with whatever the host(s) says, or I hear extremely moderate broadcasts that don’t seem to ever address tough or controversial issues. When I turn on the TV and see religious broadcasts on TV, I tend to see very basic non-denominational or single denominational shows that also shun controversial issues.

What I would like to see is sort of what we have going on here. Shows with diverse points of view, vigorously debated would have me tuning in all the time. If the controversies traditionally played out between relgious fundamentalists and the secular community were contested and debated within the religious communities themselves it would be utterly fascinating. It might not be in the fundamentalist’s best interests, but I think it would probably help Christianity as a whole by deflating stereotypes and making people engage in their religion in ways that listening to a sermon delivered by one person does not. Is there money in such a thing? Could there be a sustainable profit made from a venture such as this, as opposed to what is available now? I don’t know the answer to that really, but I’d sure tune in.

[Guinastasia]

Well, that too. I guess I DO love her because she is my grandmother. And because I KNOW that she is a good person, despite her faults. I think we all feel that way about the people we love. We KNOW that they aren’t horrible people, but they happen to have flaws. We may not always agree with their actions, but we love them anyways.

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by Ptahlis *
What I would like to see is sort of what we have going on here. Shows with diverse points of view, vigorously debated would have me tuning in all the time.

Er…

Announcer: And, in order to keep our broadcasting licence, we devote Sunday night dead time to public service shows of limited appeal. Gabbin’ about God, sponsored by Ace Religious Supply, where they say, ``If we don’t got it, it ain’t holy.’’
…
Announcer: And our first caller is from Shelbyville Heights.
Caller: Yes, hi. With all the suffering and injustice in the world, do you ever wonder if God really exists?
Rev. Lovejoy: No.
Msgr. Daly: Not for a second.
Rabbi Krustofsky: Not at all.
Announcer: Great, good conversation there. Our next call…

I don’t think it’d work. This isn’t such a bad format we got here already.

[Ptahlis]

*Originally posted by aynrandlover *
**No way. You cannot do this. You cannot seperate a person from their actions. If you condemn the actions, you condemn the person who does them. I don’t see a way around that. **

I have to disagree that this is impossible. I think it is certainly difficult and problematic when put into practice, but not utterly impossible. I don’t think it’s impossible to divorce the idea of a person from his actions, loving one yet not another. I am not sure exactly how to put into words what I mean by it, but my daughters have frequently done things that have made me very angry. Should one of them later do something I really hate, say become an addict, I could very much hate what they were doing to themselves without ever losing the love I have for them. Even now, I try to tell them when they stray that they did a bad thing, rather than that they were bad.

In my mind, one could clearly conclude that homosexual sex is sinful, and yet think that homosexuals themselves have every right under the law to marry, to live where they please, to adopt, and so on. Applied thusly, I think LTS/HTS can work, because it takes the “sinner” and his beliefs into account as being more important than the “sin.” After all, I think that the vile sputum that Neo-Nazis spew forth is hideously wrong, yet I still believe that they have the right to say it.

[Jodi]

No way. You cannot do this. You cannot seperate a person from their actions.

What you mean, of course, is you cannot do this. That doesn’t mean it is impossible, though I’ll grant that it’s extremely hard.

Christians believe that God asks us to love others in spite of their actions or sins. This is the chief commandment. Why? Because we ask that God love us in spite of our transgressions and so we can do no less for our fellow people.

I have absolutely no problem punishing an action and loving the actor simultaneously; I imagine when and if I have children, I’ll have the opportunity to do it repeatedly. I think

There are many Christians who sincerely believe that homosexual actions are morally wrong. This does not automatically mean that they believe homosexuals are worthless, or that they are not also entitled to both the love of God and equality under the law.

Unless you mean “I love my grandmother because she is my grandmother, period; everything else is merely icing on the cake,” then I guess everything is fine, but I’d hate to be loved in that sense.

Why? Loving someone who is demonstrably unlovable takes a lot more fortitude than loving the lovable.

Kinda takes the beauty out of the feeling, wouldn’t you think?

No, I certainly would not think. To paraphrase Kennedy, loving each other is something we are commanded to do not because it is easy, but because it is hard.

[Esprix]

See? I promised I’d post.

Way too many things to address individually, but I’ll post some generalizations, which no doubt will get me into trouble.

First, allow me to make absolutely clear that I understand there are lots of different flavors of Christianity – Catholics are not Baptists, who are not Lutherans, who are not Mormons, who are not Seventh Day Adventists, who are not Methodists, who are not United Church of Christ, who are not, etc., etc. But for the purposes of this thread, I’m just glad everybody got my point – that is, to paint the entire gay community with the broad brush of “love the sinner, hate the sin” is just as ludicrous, offensive, condescending and irresponsible as “love the Christian, hate Christianity” is to some people. Of course not every Christian denomination is the same, and of course very individual Christian is as different as people are in general.

Perhaps for the sake of this discussion we should differentiate between “Jesusonians,” i.e., more liberal Christians who follow what Jesus actually said and chalk the rest of the Bible up to theological history; “Bibleists,” i.e., the moderates who believe in most of the Bible, but perhaps pick and choose what is and isn’t relevant to their belief system; and “Paulists,” as was cleverly pointed out, i.e., the ones that take the Bible literally and are the most conservative. I think we can safely reserve “Jeezers” to the most rabid of the right-wingers, i.e., Fred Phelps and the vocal zealously anti-gay contingent (which, yes, are the minority of Christians).

I am not “anti-Christian.” I do not condemn either Christianity or its followers, even when I disagree with them (sometimes vehemently so). I have much respect for Jesus the man, God as a belief system, and religion in general. I do, however, take umbrage when Christianity (and note here I’m talking about the religious dogma of the Bible, not the individuals who follow it or any of the “Jesusonian” type denominations) says, “One of the most integral parts of what makes you is offensive to us, and we hope that someday you will get over it and see that we’ve been right all along. Really, we know what’s best for you.” It just reads as holier-than-thou as one can get.

So being accused of being “anti-Christian,” it just seemed disingenuous for someone (and not even somebody who was necessarily Christian) to say, “Well, they have a right to hate you – that’s their religious beliefs - but you’re a jerk for hating them.” So my reaction was the title of this thread. Do I really believe it? No, not really, and ample evidence has been presented why I shouldn’t – not every Christian is representative of this bigoted aspect of the religion as a whole.

I will say, though, that the number of Christian denominations that actively embrace a pro-gay theology are the minority, as, let’s face it, despite Polycarp’s arguments to the contrary, the Bible fairly clearly states that homosexuality is a sin (the context in which that statement was made aside). Although several “Bibleist” denominations have basically foregone that as they have foregone the fact that the Bible says women are property and you should only marry within the Twelve Tribes, the fact remains that the largest denominations (“Paulists”) in the United States (Catholics and Baptists, IIRC) have a steadfastly “LTS/HTS” stance, and, as has been demonstrated, such a statement I find pretty insulting. Medicine and psychology are on the side of the gay community, yet these Christian churches cling to the “LTS/HTS” philosophy. Yet it is religion that is a choice, not homosexuality. Since I didn’t choose this particular sin, why would someone choose to belong to an organization that preaches to its members that gay men and women are inherently wrong, and that by expressing love, which this organization touts above all else, they are committing a grievous act, one that will end them to eternal damnation? How can standing by this particular tenet really be “loving the sinner” when it spreads ignorance, misrepresentation, misinformation and tacit approval for discrimination?

And like a conservative Christian might find out I’m gay and instantly get preconceived notions about who or what I am from their own upbringing or experiences or beliefs, so, too, when I meet a self-proclaimed Christian do red flags go up in my own head. It’s human nature. Thankfully, we’re rational beings and can get past that initial reaction, even if a twinge of it always remains. I’m certainly just as guilty of having my “Jewish friends” or “Buddhist friends” as anyone who has me as their “gay friend” (Hell, like on this board, for example). We classify – it’s the way the mind works, for better or for worse. But I have to say that anybody who tells me they are Christian, I always look at them with a skeptical eye, as chances are they are of the “Paulist” “LTS/HTS” variety, and that just makes me uneasy on a very deep, visceral level. Frankly, I get kind of insulted when someone tells me they’re praying for me – it just affronts everything I believe about the way the universe works. “Nice thoughts” I don’t have a problem with, but “praying” irks me, because that’s the way I see the universe. But that’s just me, and I know their heart is in the right place, and I don’t tell them not to, nor do I express my discomfort, because, like I said, I know they mean well.

A big part of this discussion also of course revolves around the fact that there is a portion of the population, both Christian and non, that simply do not see homosexuality as a sin, and there is a portion that does. It seems ludicrous to me to see being left-handedness as a sin, so it seems equally inane and “non-issual” to see who I fall in love with as a sin, but that’s the way it goes. I would gather that the majority of people still believe that homosexuality is wrong, or at the very least “icky,” which fuels their beliefs.

In a lot of ways, I agree with goboy – I find this unyielding belief in a 2000 year old book of parables and history and a personified deity to be foolishness, and it sure as hell ain’t for me. But faith is a funny thing, and I wouldn’t go around telling someone they shouldn’t believe something – believing something other than what I believe diminishes neither of us, after all, but that doesn’t mean we don’t disagree anyway.

Jodi, I understand why you’re offended by Eve’s jibe, but isn’t that exactly what the point of this thread is, that such statements are, on their face, ignorant, be they against Christians, gays, Jews, or anyone else?

And if it were up to me, Polycarp would be Pope. And despite the turn this thread has taken, I’m not apologizing for it – goodness knows I’m learning things, and this is one of the greatest debates, n’est-ce pas? In the OP I clearly state where the reason behind this thread came from, which I interpreted as some pretty condescending remarks from people who seem to think I’ve “fallen off the wagon” of Christianity, so I responded in kind. Regardless of the source, however, I didn’t post it to be inflammatory, but rather to ask the real question of whether or not I am right in the way I sometimes feel towards Christians like this.

And speaking of those remarks, why did everyone assume I had some “bad experience with a Christian” or a church so that I “turned against” the faith? I love how everyone raised in America is assumed, by default, to be Christian or raised so, and if they’re not, they “lost the faith.” Yes, I was raised very loosely Methodist, and even went through a stage where I was a church-goin’ kid, but it didn’t last. For many years I just didn’t as far as religion went, until, in college, I discovered my UU home. The Christian faith simply didn’t interest me – no traumatic incident, no proselytizing wack-o, just didn’t. Does my being gay have to do with not being Christian? Actually, it doesn’t, but it does have a lot to do with me being UU. Just wanted to clear that up.

If I missed any specific questions people asked, ask again and I’ll try to keep up better from now on. And I didn’t edit this for content very well, so I may have said a few things poorly - and no doubt y’all will point these instances out to me for clarification.

(Oh, and Joe_Cool, although I’m flattered at the insinuation that I would be as wonderful as Eve, I must regrettably deny your wild accusation. And IIRC, the moderators of this message board do not appreciate public troll- or sock puppet-hunting, so I’d suggest putting a cork in it.)

Esprix

[Guinastasia]

Esprix, that kicked SERIOUS ass.

I liked the idea of the Jesusonians…(perhaps someone should start a new religion…)
“You say you want a revolution…”

[erislover]

*Originally posted by Jodi *
That doesn’t mean it is impossible, though I’ll grant that it’s extremely hard…

Perhaps we should start this conversation over, then, because it is clearly not agreed that homosexuality, a trait one is born into like retardation, being male or female, hair color, etc., cannot be a sin. How can it be morally wrong to be born?
However, if you feel that one chooses homosexuality, then I guess that makes me wonder, did you choose heterosexuality?
Essentially, by calling any act or action a sin, you are condemning it. It doesn’t matter if you completely outlaw the act, jmull., or merely talk about it in an attempt to get someone to change their mind. The act has already been declared as wrong/sin/whatever, everything else is now a matter of degree.
As I said, it is easy to have a LTSHTS attitude so long as there are no external consequences of that feeling.

I have absolutely no problem punishing an action and loving the actor simultaneously; I imagine when and if I have children, I’ll have the opportunity to do it repeatedly.

Uh-oh…I warned people against taking the child-extention argument. This does seem like a way out of the hate-by-extension I implied preiously, doesn’t it? It doesfrom your viewpoint because you obviously still love the child. However, consider the case of a deviant child who is constantly doing bad things, and there is constant punishment (whatever form that punishment may take, even if it is not physical harm nor verbal chastising but merely dicussion). Constant punishment, as seen by the receiving end, is always going to be interpreted as a form of hate, though not necessarily a strong or even deep-seated absolute hate. Nonetheless, to do anything about any form of disagreeable action is to do something to the actor. Whatever meaning you hope to impose in this action is lost unless the actor agrees with you. In the case of homosexuality, clearly not something you can just “remove”, this will entail constant action and the receiving end will never see the love behind it, except perhaps in theory (“With friends like this who needs enemies?”).

Addressing the simul-post of universal love of man
I cannot see how love has any useful definition in this sense, other than “Something I give to all people.” All people are then treated equally to you. Even assuming this is true (which this thread should clearly show it isn’t) the act of equating all people removes any value whatsoever from any person or relationship. Your wife is the equivalent of the bum on the street, your husband is the equivalent of a nazi, etc etc. I am not saying they are the same people, but that your feelings toward them are the same. Friendship is meaningless, they are now people you just happen to have met and talked to; marriages are meaningless, they are now just representative of a random act with a a random person. Monogamy is clearly a sham.

To remove this problem, you might want to rephrase “love of all people” to “All people are endowed with rights god gave them.” This does not imply equality nor universal love and it still allows for LTSHTS in mind but not in action. I would make a similar claim, in fact. “All people are, by nature, afforded certian liberties to allow maximum freedom and maximum growth.” Both, of course, presuppose that things are universally “good” or “bad,” but nevermind THAT argument now. Let’s just agree that there can be definitions for good and bad that, while perhaps arbitrary, can at least be universally agreed upon.

So, to return to a definition of love that has any practical meaning we need to show that

1. there is an opposite of love.
2. There are degrees of love.
3. There are different “kinds” of love.

(1) is obvious from the implication of LTSHTS. (2) is not so obvious. (3) is downright definition. Of course, in (3) as well there would be further subsets like 3.1–there is an opposite of this kind of love.

Now we get into differnet kinds of hate, too, and stuff gets really complicated.

So, I would abandon the “I love everyone” argument unless you care to define the different types of love and hate and then explain which love applies to which sinner and which hate apllies to which sin.

I would also abandon the notion that condemning an act is done out of love for the actor unless you can show me how, specifically for homosexuality, you can {dislike, talk against, ask others to cease} homosexual actions and have them not resist AND not dislike you back. Merely saying “But I’m doing it out of love!” will not remove the result of “With friends like this who needs enemies.”

In short, were I one of higher moral stature than I actually am and presumed myself to be christian, I would never admit to LTSHTS, keep it my little secret, and not act on it. Terrible, I know, but exactly what was expected of gays for years and years and years…and some places to this very day. And exactly what is felt by the homosexual who finds that his very lifestyle is “wrong.” Gays can practice homosexuality without trying to turn other people into gays; christians can practice LTSHTS without trying to turn gays into straights.

[Polycarp]

Guinastasia commented:

I liked the idea of the Jesusonians…(perhaps someone should start a new religion…)
“You say you want a revolution…”

How appropriate on the 20th anniversary of John Lennon’s death – which, be it noted in passing, is also for Roman Catholics the feast when Mother Mary was conceived without sin (don’t ask, just Let it be).

And as for the parenthetical comment…just wait a few years…

[Jodi]

I’m just glad everybody got my point – that is, to paint the entire gay community with the broad brush of “love the sinner, hate the sin” is just as ludicrous, offensive, condescending and irresponsible as “love the Christian, hate Christianity” is to some people.

Well, no, it’s not. Just to play devil’s advocate here, the only thing all Christians have in common is the declaration that they believe in the divinity of Christ and follow Him. Beyond that, they’re all over the board. In contrast, the vast majority of homosexuals practice homosexual sex – the act that some Christians consider a “sin.” What is “offensive” or “condescending” or “irresponsible” about saying “I like you, but I don’t like this thing you do”? Assuming you are dealing with a person who truly believes homosexual sex is wrong, you obviously can’t make them think it is okay, so by attempting to follow “love the sinner, hate the sin,” that person is arguably trying to do the best they can by you.

In contrast, look at “love the Christian, hate Christianity.” What is it about Christianity that you hate? Whatever it may be – intolerance, ignorance, irresponsibility – you cannot ascribe that “sin” to all (or even most) Christians. (As opposed to ascribing to all gay people the practice of gay sex, which I think is reasonable to do; it is as unreasonable to expect celibacy of gay people as it is of straight people.)

The only way “love Christians, hate the practice of Christianity” can be seen as analogous to “love homosexuals, hate homosexual sex” is if you hate the whole act – any act, every act – of following Christ. If you get any more specific than that, you can no longer say you “hate the [entire] practice of Christianity.” In contrast, Christians who believe gay sex is wrong can very honestly say “hate the [entire] practice of gay sex.” Am I making any sense?

I do, however, take umbrage when Christianity (and note here I’m talking about the religious dogma of the Bible, not the individuals who follow it or any of the “Jesusonian” type denominations) says, “One of the most integral parts of what makes you is offensive to us, and we hope that someday you will get over it and see that we’ve been right all along. Really, we know what’s best for you.” It just reads as holier-than-thou as one can get.

It is holier than thou, and offensive. The point, though, is you tend to talk as if all Christians believe this even as you simultaneously acknowledge that not all Christians believe this.

In the United States (Catholics and Baptists, IIRC) have a steadfastly “LTS/HTS” stance, and, as has been demonstrated, such a statement I find pretty insulting.

I truly do not understand this. Fundamentalist Christians do not think the orientation of being gay is wrong; they think that acting upon that orientation – i.e., having gay sex – is wrong. They believe this is a sin, that it is a morally wrong thing to do. In light of that genuinely held believe, you cannot ask any more of them that to “love the sinner and hate the sin.” They CANNOT love the sin, because they are convinced that having gay sex is a morally wrong thing to do. The other alternative is “hate the sinner, hate the sin,” and though you may be right that this would seem to be the more logical position (and perhaps is the one some hold), I fail to see how your collective difficulties would be improved by a shift to embrace it.

And like a conservative Christian might find out I’m gay and instantly get preconceived notions about who or what I am from their own upbringing or experiences or beliefs, so, too, when I meet a self-proclaimed Christian do red flags go up in my own head. It’s human nature. Thankfully, we’re rational beings and can get past that initial reaction, even if a twinge of it always remains.

A “twinge”? I wonder how you would feel if people you felt were your friends confessed to always and forever having a “twinge” of misgiving about you because you are gay.

In a lot of ways, I agree with goboy – I find this unyielding belief in a 2000 year old book of parables and history and a personified deity to be foolishness, and it sure as hell ain’t for me.

I’m truly disappointed to see that you in particular would post this. Even if you don’t hold a particular set of beliefs, it would seem to me that a sense of respect would preclude you from labeling them “foolish.” I wonder if you would be so quick to label paganism, as practiced by MATT and HASTUR, as “foolish” or if your realization that their beliefs were deep and sincerely held would preclude you from doing so.

But faith is a funny thing, and I wouldn’t go around telling someone they shouldn’t believe something – believing something other than what I believe diminishes neither of us, after all, but that doesn’t mean we don’t disagree anyway.

But you would, apparently, call them a fool for believing it.

Jodi, I understand why you’re offended by Eve’s jibe, but isn’t that exactly what the point of this thread is, that such statements are, on their face, ignorant, be they against Christians, gays, Jews, or anyone else?

Is that the point of this thread? Because if so, I missed it. As far as I was concerned, the thread was started to determine whether it was a good idea for you to generalize about all Christians by beliefs you really know are only held by some Christians. Are you right to be pissed off by the condescension and divisiveness of some Christians? Sure. Are you therefore right to talk about all Christians as if they are all condescending and divisive? IMO, no.

[Freyr]

Another voice heard:

I’ve read thru this thread and I have to side with Esprix. The Christian church, acting on the whole, has a rather bigotted attitude toward the GLBT community.

A bit of history of myself. When I finally was old enough to read and research thru the Bible and found the appropriate passages about homosexuality, I decided then and there the Christian Church wasn’t for me. I am not another Martin Luther and wouldn’t make it my goal to try to get the mass of Christianity to see things my way. I had it easy, as we moved around the country a lot and were never firmly associated with the church in the first place.

There are other reasons for leaving, pretty similar to what matt_mcl has posted.

**Ptahlis wrote:

I personally wish that more Christians would oppose the fundamentalist activist factions that believe themselves justified in denying equal rights to homosexuals based on Biblical pronouncements.**

This point here goes to the heart of my arguement. It’s simply NOT the fundamentalist elements that are advocating this policy. It’s the OFFICIAL policy of almost every Christian church that homosexuality is wrong. The Roman Catholic, the Orthodox, the LDS, the Southern Baptist, etc believe homosexuality is wrong.

This, in and of itself is no problem for me, since I’m not Christian, I’m not bound by Christian rules. What does really raise my ire is when those organizations use their political and financial strength to affect secular law. The recent passage of the referendum that outlaws same-sex marriage in California is a good example. Two major proponets to the referendum were the LDS and Catholic church.

While I know there are a good many Christians, especially here on the SDMB who accept me and my homosexuality, the majority of Christians seem to want to go with official policy, either with active or silent consent.

As much as I try, I admit to only being human. I can only turn my cheek so many times. If the Christian church can only be hostile toward homosexuals, it should be no surprise that homosexuals would be hostile toward them.

[Guinastasia]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
**Guinastasia commented:

I liked the idea of the Jesusonians…(perhaps someone should start a new religion…)
“You say you want a revolution…”

How appropriate on the 20th anniversary of John Lennon’s death – which, be it noted in passing, is also for Roman Catholics the feast when Mother Mary was conceived without sin (don’t ask, just Let it be).

And as for the parenthetical comment…just wait a few years… **

Oh good god…I didn’t know that! John Lennon, the Immaculate Conception…hmmmmmm…

And yesterday was Pearl Harbor…

[Guinastasia]

Well…the thing about the Catholics is that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and that until they agree gays can be MARRIED, well, then sex for them is wrong. It’s kind of twisted, but they don’t advocate going out and killing people.

Not that I agree with everything the Catholic church does, mind you. Although their stance on birth control is REALLY pissing me off. Not abortion-BIRTH CONTROL. My sister told me today that her 8th grade teacher told her that the pill was the same as an abortion. Same with condoms…ooookay.

So I guess having my period is an abortion too, since I didn’t get the egg fertilized, eh?

[SisterCoyote]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
Well…the thing about the Catholics is that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and that until they agree gays can be MARRIED, well, then sex for them is wrong. It’s kind of twisted, but they don’t advocate going out and killing people.

I actually want to start a thread about the whole idea that there is an “attack on families” going on (of which the above seems part to me), but I need to get some sources together first.

**
Not that I agree with everything the Catholic church does, mind you. Although their stance on birth control is REALLY pissing me off. Not abortion-BIRTH CONTROL. My sister told me today that her 8th grade teacher told her that the pill was the same as an abortion. Same with condoms…ooookay.

So I guess having my period is an abortion too, since I didn’t get the egg fertilized, eh? **

Frighteningly, I think we just had someone on the board arguing exactly that, didn’t we? Personally, I’d just love a return to the days when women were expected to just bear and bear and bear until they dropped dead of exhaustion. Oh, yeah. :rolleyes:

So, what about it, 'Sprix? going to go with Poly & Jodi & matt_mcl to take over a network? And may I recommend one that people will notice is off the air, unlike, say, oh, CBS or something?

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**Well…the thing about the Catholics is that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and that until they agree gays can be MARRIED, well, then sex for them is wrong. It’s kind of twisted, but they don’t advocate going out and killing people.

Not that I agree with everything the Catholic church does, mind you. Although their stance on birth control is REALLY pissing me off. Not abortion-BIRTH CONTROL. My sister told me today that her 8th grade teacher told her that the pill was the same as an abortion. Same with condoms…ooookay.

So I guess having my period is an abortion too, since I didn’t get the egg fertilized, eh? **

<OT> Not to defend the RC Church’s stand on birth control (which I disagree with)…however it would be wrong to categorize that stand as equating most forms of birth control with abortion. The opposition to birth control is based upon different reasoning than the opposition to abortion. The 8th grade teacher (if quoted correctly) was wrong…and his/her statements are not church teaching <OT>

[Jodi]

AYNRANDLOVER:

Perhaps we should start this conversation over, then, because it is clearly not agreed that homosexuality, a trait one is born into like retardation, being male or female, hair color, etc., cannot be a sin. How can it be morally wrong to be born?

The belief of fundamentalist Christians is not that it is a sin to be born homosexual but that it is a sin to engage in homosexual acts. Just like it’s not a sin to be born attracted to children or animals but it’s a sin to act on those feelings as well. (Note to people taking offense at the comparison: don’t bother. I don’t personally believe it, either.)

However, if you feel that one chooses homosexuality . . .

Except that I don’t believe this, and there are other Christians who believe homosexual sex is a sin who don’t believe it either. (How they reconcile that God would make you feel love and then make it wrong to express love, I don’t know, but then these are not my beliefs.)

Essentially, by calling any act or action a sin, you are condemning it.

More specifically, you are declaring your conviction that God condemns it.

As I said, it is easy to have a LTSHTS attitude so long as there are no external consequences of that feeling.

I don’t know what this means.

However, consider the case of a deviant child who is constantly doing bad things, and there is constant punishment (whatever form that punishment may take, even if it is not physical harm nor verbal chastising but merely dicussion). Constant punishment, as seen by the receiving end, is always going to be interpreted as a form of hate, though not necessarily a strong or even deep-seated absolute hate.

I have no control over and no responsibility for how others “interpret” what I feel. And how others interpret how I feel has nothing to do with what I truly do feel.

In the case of homosexuality, clearly not something you can just “remove”, this will entail constant action and the receiving end will never see the love behind it, except perhaps in theory (“With friends like this who needs enemies?”).

What constant action is entailed by “love the sinner, hate the sin”? I see no action whatsoever implicit in that statement, except the failure to condone the sin. Even that action must be counterbalanced by the action of loving the sinner.

Addressing the simul-post of universal love of man
I cannot see how love has any useful definition in this sense, other than “Something I give to all people.” All people are then treated equally to you.

No; it is not just treating everyone equally. It is treating everyone with love. If I see four people drowning in a river and I have the ability to save them, the Christian thing is not to merely treat them all equally and let them all drown, but to try my best to save them all.

Even assuming this is true (which this thread should clearly show it isn’t) the act of equating all people removes any value whatsoever from any person or relationship.

I fail to see why this follows. The commandment to love everyone does not translate to a command to love everyone exactly the same, either in type of love or degree.

To remove this problem, you might want to rephrase “love of all people” to “All people are endowed with rights god gave them.”

Whyever would I do that, since the two statements do not at all mean the same thing? Love implicates assistance; mere equality does not.

So, to return to a definition of love that has any practical meaning we need to show that

1. there is an opposite of love.
2. There are degrees of love.
3. There are different “kinds” of love.

None of this is inconsistent with a commandment to strive to love everyone.

So, I would abandon the “I love everyone” argument unless you care to define the different types of love and hate and then explain which love applies to which sinner and which hate apllies to which sin.

Would you? Fortunately for me, I don’t feel constrained to do what you would do.

I would also abandon the notion that condemning an act is done out of love for the actor . . .

But I never said this. Many people who condemn homosexual sex do so because they think it is wrong – a sin. Their love or hate for the actor enters into not at all.

In short, were I one of higher moral stature than I actually am and presumed myself to be christian, I would never admit to LTSHTS, keep it my little secret, and not act on it.

Sigh. Not all Christians follow the precept “love the sinner, hate the sin.” Many do not. Many do not consider homosexual sex to be a sin at all. What is it with some of you that you act like you do not understand this?