:: banging head ::
GAUDERE, you asked why more moderate Christians don’t speak up on this issue? Because it’s so frustrating to discover that nobody bothers to listen when we do.
Only when Lib’s not around to state his definition. 
Hey, I don’t agree with the Catholic church’s stance. Amazingly, I still consider my self a follower of the religion, God, Jesus, all the saints, the angels, the prayers and especially the hymns…(as a classical music lover, I ADORE Ave Maria…ooooh…*gives me chills)
BUT…I don’t like a lot of the hard stances, the nasty don’t do this, don’t do that, you’re bad, you’re wrong, you’re this, you’re that. No, I think that the most important thing is just to try your hardest to do what is right, and to be good to people, because, well, Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me. In other words, a Christian should pay attention to the teaching that Jesus is in ALL of us, he is a part of us, he is love and goodness and peace and acceptance of others. He is the guy who said let the children come to me, the guy who hung around with whores and tax collectors and bums and thieves. He said, it’s easy to love the people you agree with.
So, that is why, I get upset by the Jack Chick types of the world-the ones who make the rest of us look bad.
(speaking of Chick, anyone want the link for the Jack Chick Parody page?)
Hell, Jodi, you don’t think I get pissed when the umpteenth person comes by insisting atheists hate God and cannot have “real” morals? ::shrug:: It is vitally important to me that such misconceptions be addressed. Of course it’s frustrating for me, but I’m never going to quit. I think I may be more willing to step up and respond again and and again and again because I am not a majority and a poor opinion of my group can have fairly significant consequences. If gays think Christians are bigoted, I can see why you would find it exceedingly annoying and possibly hurtful, but they ain’t going to be passing any anti-Christian legislation anytime soon. 
I don’t believe Freyr was speaking about you per se, but was saying that the large organized groups of Christians are commonly either antipathic or indifferent towards gay rights, and those Christain groups that ardently support gay rights are either small or not very vocal. He gave as an example the Catholic and LDS support for anti-gay marriage legislation; there you have two very large Christian groups opposing gay marriage, so you could perhaps legimately generalize from that that LDS and Catholics oppose gay marriage, and that Christians who support gay marriage are not numerous or vocal enough to overturn the clout of the Big Guys.
Yeah, I know. It’s just that when I’ve said something forty times in one thread I start to feel like . . . ::: tap tap tap ::: Is this thing on?
Unfortunately, I can’t argue with that. Heck, my own church (the Methodists) just refused to back down from their conservative stance on homosexuality. (Way to go, guys. :rolleyes:) But the thing is, there are lots of Methodists who disagree with this, just like there’s lots of Catholics who disagree with their church’s stance on abortion and birth control. We can work to change our respective churches – and we do – but we cannot deny that until they change, they may officially stand for policies we as individuals find distasteful.
I think that’s a very perceptive point to be made by a godless floozy such as yourself.
But you don’t get the Gaudere Stubborn-as-a-Missouri-Mule Award until you’ve gone 'round 1000 posts with one person without any apparent dint in his preconceptions ( ::coughFriendofGodcough:: ) C’mon, only 800 posts to go! You can do it!
There is no point in talking to people who wont listen to you except as entertainment value.
“Well, I reread Asmodean’s post.
Now my brain hurts, and I’m none the wiser. Gee thanks, Poly.”
I think ill make that my sig:)
I would be honored, Asmodeon.
No sense in more rhetoric. Either my logic is flawed, or my opponents don’t see it. Instead I will focus on this one thing.
May I refer you to Leviticus 20:13, where God is talking to Moses, and says to him:
“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act…”
Perhaps the Old Testament is not to your liking. Lets, then, turn to Romans 1:27. Here we find: “…and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire for one another, men with men committing indecent acts…”
I have no problem if you want to play create-a-religion. But when you call yourself a Christian and find your own scripture used against you, don’t play ignorant either. God does not like gays, at least not the biblical god.
Perhaps I can interest you in Discordianism?
AYNRANDLOVER:
Whew! :rolleyes:
[quote"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act…" . . . “…and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire for one another, men with men committing indecent acts…”
In your zealotry to post this, did you miss the importance of the word “act.” It is the act, not the orientation, that is a sin. Now race back to your Bible search engine and find me something that says homosexual orientation is a sin. Preferable NT, since as a Christian I believe NT trumps OT anyway. I’ll wait here.
Just as I did not find it necessary to create my religion (I’m just a garden-variety Methodist), neither do I necessary to pretend my religion is what you apparently want it to be.
I won’t, I promise. But then, so far you have been a singular failure at using “my” scripture against me.
Fundamentalist Christians believe God does not like homosexual acts. The story of David and Jonathan is particularly pointed to by some liberal Christians as proof that God does not mind homosexual orientation. (Personally, I think that’s a stretch of a read of the story, but there it is.)
Now, toddle off and try again.
Toddle off and try again? You have clearly made that impossible for me by selectively ignoring parts of the bible. Any point I bring up, you can simply say “I don’t believe that.”
So the act is bad but the thought not? Well, if we were to take the bible literally this would be true except for adultery, where in Matthew 5:28 we find the thought of adultery is as bad as the act itself. If we are going to interpret the bible, this passage would seem to say that the thought of a sin is as bad as a sin itself.
When you pronounce yourself a Christian, this means you follow both the old testament and the new testament; else why call yourself a christian? At any rate, it seems you are one of my generalization #4 christians.
Perhaps, in the interest of fighting ignorance, you can explain to me how you know which passages to interpret literally, which passages to interpret metaphorically or as a simile, and which passages to outright ignore? I don’t understand. Is it really arbitrary? If not, you and other christians everywhere can rest easier knowing that there is one less stereotype to fight.
Um, Poly, why not include me? Am I not a Christian? Do I not post quite a little? Do i not argue that JC taught nothing that could be considered saying that homosexuality is a sin?
Oh, Daniel! Paranoia ill becomes you; you’re much more interesting when you speak of the Celtic Church (BTW, did you know there’s a resolution in the WCC to agree on a universal date for Easter – can you say “Synod of Whitby?” :D)
The reason you were not on that list is that, so far as I can remember (and I did resurrect the thread) you never posted to any of the 15+ pages of Christianity and Love in its three incarnations – probably because it died before you joined the board, or at least before you found Great Debates). But yeah, aside from that, you would belong to such a list. That particular list related to the wonderful thread Gaudere made reference to in her response to Jodi… read it if you have eight free hours or so!! 
Actually, I thought I did post to that- in any case, my very 1st post was right here in GD, so if that thread was after i joined, I likely posted.
I am not being paranoid, just thought I was forgotten.
“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act”
Notice it doesent say sin.
**Gaudere wrote:
I don’t believe Freyr was speaking about you per se, but was saying that the large organized groups of Christians are commonly either antipathic or indifferent towards gay rights, and those Christain groups that ardently support gay rights are either small or not very vocal. He gave as an example the Catholic and LDS support for anti-gay marriage legislation; there you have two very large Christian groups opposing gay marriage, so you could perhaps legimately generalize from that that LDS and Catholics oppose gay marriage, and that Christians who support gay marriage are not numerous or vocal enough to overturn the clout of the Big Guys.**
Thank you, Gaudere for explaining my point so well. I need to polish my debate skills.
**Jodi wrote:
But the thing is, there are lots of Methodists who disagree with this, just like there’s lots of Catholics who disagree with their church’s stance on abortion and birth control. We can work to change our respective churches – and we do – but we cannot deny that until they change, they may officially stand for policies we as individuals find distasteful.**
If there are lots of them, they’re being very quiet or very apathetic about what goes on in their church. I know some are there, as evidenced by yourself, Poly, et al. But how many remains to be seen.
Jodi, a question for you; if the policies are so distasteful, why stay associated with the Church? Is it because you think you can really change their policies or is the issue simply not that important enough to you?
Jodi, I don’t hate you or your church. What I do hate is the Christian Church that uses its political and financial muscle to manipulate secular law to follow its own twisted version of dogma. When that Church attempts to deny me basic civil rights based purely on its own interpretation of religious texts, that’s where I draw the line. That’s what my anger and hatred are directed at, the abuse of power coming from the Church that spills over into secular life.
Freyr- for the freakin 1000th time- THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS the CHRISTIAN CHURCH!!!. Got it? Never really has been. There are Christian ChurcheS, note the plural.
Thus, the policies of one Christian church can very well be highly distateful to one from another Christian Church.
Your statement is like saying “the government”, when there are hundreds of governments.
Thus, and ipso facto, “The Christian Church” cannot be “anti gay”, as there is NO “Christian church”.
Personally, (and I am going to do something I do not like to do, ie attack a religion), the official policies of the Southern Baptist Church are so far at variance with the policies of JC, himself, that it can be argued that they are no longer “Christians”.
“Gadarene
‘Well, I reread Asmodean’s post.
Now my brain hurts, and I’m none the wiser. Gee thanks, Poly.’”
…Well, you cited me, but you attributed me to Jason. G-A-U-D-E-R-E, dude, not “Gadarene”. <grin>
I swear, it’s like “Glen or Glenda?” around here…
In the interests of alleviating confusion, Gaudere, I think you should change your name. “Eumenides” has a nice ring to it.
Freyr commented:
After Jodi reacted with (IMHO justifiable) hurt that what she and I and others had said seemed to mean nothing to Freyr, Gaudere commented to her:
And Freyr responded:
Howsomever, there is a very strong point that needs to be raised here. The churches qua organized institutions often practice such attitudes. Most are of the LTSHTS persuasion, regarding which I do not want to speak. But in general there is growing awareness among them as institutions of the facts regarding homosexuality and their attitudes are, slowly, being tempered. To coin a phrase, Rome wasn’t built in a day.
About two miles from me as I write are two Baptist churches. Both withdrew from the Southern Baptist Convention because they felt morally obligated to conduct civil union ceremonies to members who wished to celebrate the love and lifelong commitment they had with another of their own sex, and were condemned by SBC leadership for doing so. About twenty miles west is another church with the same story.
The United Church of Christ (formerly the Congregationalists, along with a small group previously called the “Evangelical and Reformed Church”) do not draw that line. Their membership is well over a million.
The Episcopal Church is on record as being totally gay-accepting. For over five years there has been a formal statement (the “Koinonia Accord”) on record signed by 88 of our slightly over 100 bishops that completely recognizes that gays are and should be complete members of our church, and which draws a distinction, not between straight and gay sex, but between promiscuous, predatory, and manipulative sex and the expression of love in committed lifelong relationships – and states explicitly that that includes gay people. It says that our clergy (in particular, though this is an obligation on laity too) are expected to be chaste – not celibate, but engaging in sex either not at all or in the context of a lifelong commitment made in love and kept in fidelity – and specifies that this is true for both straight and gay people, noting that the latter cannot marry under the eyes of the law but can engage in morally binding commitments of the sort contemplated. There are over 2.5 million Episcopalians.
The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, led by the Rev. Elder Troy Perry, is a denomination specifically oriented towards gay people. It is an affront to the name of Christ that such a thing needs to exist, IMHO, because we Christians should never have driven the gay people out to have to form one. But it does exist, and has several hundred thousand members.
There is the small but real Celtic Christian Church which Danielinthewolvesden belongs to and comments about.
There are fellowships of gay Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Mormons, and numberous other denominations that I’m not aware of.
The bottom line is that, once again, the squeaky wheels are getting the news. But I want to stress loudly that there is no monolithic anti-gay policy. Many of the “Bibleists” and the strong right wing find homosexual acts to be sinful by reference to Scripture. I believe you would find it very rare to have any of them find the homosexual orientation to be ipso facto sinful – though probably most of them would feel that it is “evidence of unregeneration” and expect gays to “change.” (I choose not to discuss my attitude on that viewpoint.)
But Daniel had a key point to make:
About this the only thing I see in error is his last comment. The Southern Baptist Convention is a union for maintaining seminaries and missions and for preserving fellowship among the separate, independent Baptist churches – the largest among many. It’s “convenient” to regard it as a denomination equivalent to the Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, and Episcopalians, but it has absolutely no authority over its members. The conservative leadership which has taken over the convention in the last decade has tried to get a very explicit theological code, about which the best thing I can say is that David B. could devote an entire thread to shredding it section by section. And several major state conventions of Baptists which comprise the equivalent of dioceses have taken the step of refusing funding to the SBC administrative offices and seminaries, since this goes to the heart of Baptist policy – each church is to be independent to make its own decisions as local needs dictate, not have doctrine imposed from above. Navigator belongs to a Baptist church in Texas affiliated with the largest of the state conventions that have done this. I.e., the President of the SBC has all the doctrinal authority over SBC churches that I do over the Episcopal Church – he’s one member with a right to his views. (Actually that sentence is wrong, because I can send a petition up through the bureaucracy and possibly see it adopted as church policy – the SBC has no single “church policy” that he could influence, despite his best efforts.
Jodi wrote:
Freyr responded:
I cannot speak for Jodi (though I’m pretty sure she will agree more or less verbatim) but (1) we find personal fulfillment in what we get from membership in our churches, (2) we’re obeying Jesus’s directive to be a part of the larger Body of Christ working together towards His goal, and (3) we can influence better stuff like this that needs change as committed members than as outside agitators.
And, in my case, the fact that we have Bishops prepared to speak out against injustice perpetrated against gays, blacks, Third World countries, and so on, backed by several hundred years of tradition and 2.5 million followers, is a useful way to combat the evils that some church leaders in other denominations care to perpetrate.
Just for the record, Jerry Falwell’s sole claim to authority is that he’s a Baptist minister of a church with about 3,000 members. Now, granted that he has a noisy TV/radio ministry (and you know whom he stole a part of that from) and a “university” affiliated with his church, still, my own bishop speaks for over a hundred thousand Episcopalians in half of North Carolina. The Koinonia Accord speaks for almost all of the 2.5 million Episcopalians in the U.S. Jodi’s church leadership, if it ever gets its act together, speaks for nearly ten million Methodists.
Don’t think those voices aren’t going to be heard by the political leadership that’s currently arguing over about 300 votes in Florida. And it’ll put whopping more power on the side of right than the fundaloonies can muster on the side of discrimination.