Wow. I’m pretty impressed with myself. If I’m a good enough writer to evoke honest to god screaming inside your brain, Asstard, I’m gonna nominate myself for the Nobel literature prize.
Just remember, Asstard, I’m not screaming *at * you, I’m screaming *with * you. 
Who’s talking about stifling? Sooner or later we all have to choose, whether or not we truly believe in what we believe or not.
Not to beat up on anyone, but if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, then you have a responsibility to stop it from becoming exceptable MAINSTREAM behaviour, to do any less makes you a hypocrite and failure in the eyes of the lord.
I can’t see anything more mainstream, than marriage.
So while it’s easy to talk to the talk, I wonder when “they” are in the voting booth alone with their religious values, which lever are they going to pull?
Plenty of people believed in separate but equal…it didn’t work out so well in practice.
The only people who think that are you three who insist that, despite the repeated disclaimers, that the “fundie” label refers to all Christians. It doesn’t, and it’s been made very plain that I refer only to the adherents of the Five Fundamentals.
I’m unsure whether it’s the product of delbierate dishonesty or honest misunderstanding, but I grow weary of would-be martyrs who continue to claim that any criticism of a subset of Christians is a “broad brush” attack on the whole of Christendom. Knock it off already.
The only people who think that are you three who insist that, despite the repeated disclaimers, that the “fundie” label refers to all Christians. It doesn’t, and it’s been made very plain that I refer only to the adherents of the Five Fundamentals.
I’m unsure whether it’s the product of deliberate dishonesty or honest misunderstanding, but I grow weary of would-be martyrs who continue to claim that any criticism of a subset of Christians is a “broad brush” attack on the whole of Christendom. Knock it off already.
Well, we’ve identified that literal interpretation of the bible is a huge part of fundamentalism. Not all christians interpret the bible literally, and we’ve acknowledged that.
Again, a fundie is a person who believes the bible to be true in every verse, including the ones that say homosexuality is a sin. Believing an otherwise “good” person will go to hell and burn in a sea of eternal fire, simply because he’s attracted to the same sex, is a fundie belief and one that is not favorable to homosexuals. You may not want the government to legislate against them, but there is a dark spot in your heart toward them, and that is unfair, mean-spirited, narrow, and backward. If you don’t believe that homosexuals are sinners, you are not a fundie. You do not believe every word of the bible to be true.
There is no Bible verse that says homosexuality is a sin.
There is, however, a verse that says God judges no one, but has given all authority to judge to His Son[sup]1[/sup]. There is thereafter a verse that says the Son Himself has waived the authority given by His Father and also judges no one[sup]2[/sup].
Frankly, since both God and His Son refuse to judge me, were I a homosexual I would not worry what any man or woman thinks. Not one of them has even the moral authority of a piss ant.
=========================
[sup]1[/sup] “Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son.” — Jesus (John 5:22)
[sup]2[/sup] “You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.” — Jesus (John 8:15)
There are parts of the bible that can be (and are) interpreted to say that homosexuality is a sin. I personally don’t take stock in it, but there are many who do. That’s all I’m saying.
This may be where the disconnect is occurring – both with posters in this thread, and (to a large extent) with the fundies themselves.
Are all homosexuals sinners? Of course. Just like all heterosexuals are sinners. According to the Bible, a sin is a sin – there ain’t no levels. Even if homosexuality is a sin (and I’m not the person to say if it is or isn’t), it’s no worse than any other sin that I, or even the most rabid fundie, have committed. Also according to the Bible, everyone has sinned. So the fundies can chunk that segment of their argument out the window.
Also according to the Bible, whoever believes in Jesus Christ and accepts Him as their Lord and Savior is going to heaven. So a homosexual person is just as likely to be saved as I am. If you can find a verse in the Bible that says something to the effect of “Jesus came to save everyone except the gay guys” I’ll gladly change my thinking on this topic.
The problem with the fundies themselves is they tend to overlook a large portion of what Jesus said and did, according to the very book they believe is infallible. All that stuff in Leviticus was thrown out the window when Jesus came. If the New Testament were never written, then the fundies would have a leg to stand on in their arguments, based strictly on Scriptures. But the NT was written, and in it Jesus clearly says he came to establish a new covenant. Basically, He said the old rules don’t apply any more. All the acts and works in the world (such as creating laws against some “sins”) won’t get you into heaven anymore. Now it’s completely faith-based, according to a literal interpretation of the Bible.
I think some of the disconnect occurs when people use the term “Christian” as a shorthand way of saying “the fundamentalist Religious Right who wants to legislate their version of morality.” That, understandably, riles up Christians who oppose the RR on many topics. Throwing inflammatory garbage like “Unless you’ve marched/given to the cause/been beaten for the cause, then you’re my enemy” into a thread is counterproductive, as is “All gays will burn in hell.” (Note: Those were paraphrases, as examples.)
A thought: Could we, on this board, refer to fundies as “Jonathan Edwards” or just “JE”? As you may know, he’s the guy who preached the “Sinners in the hands of an angry God” sermon a couple hundred years ago. His outlook seems to match that of the fundies pretty well, and I doubt there’s anyone else (Christian or no) who would willingly subscribe to JE’s outlook on life.
So, to sum up: Fundies themselves don’t seem to have a good grasp of their faith, or else they’re deliberately ignoring certain aspects of it … which, really, is what distinguishes fundies to me. They’d rather focus on the Old Testament than the New Testament, despite what they say about the entire Bible being the “infallible word of God.”
It ain’t what they think that bugs us. It’s what they want to do to our Constitution, it’s the beer bottles thrown at us, it’s the good Christian judges who take kids away from gay parents, it’s the willingness to fire a gay person, and on and on, that bothers us.
You were cyber-screaming. Typing in all caps.
As always, you bring the issue into crystal clear focus. Thanks, Homebrew.
For a more modern take, you could use FP (for Fred Phelps).
Oh my lord.
I use caps sometimes to emphasize a phrase; it’s easier than building [.I.]…[./.I.] brackets around every other word.
Note to self: avoid the CAPS LOCK key—oops, sorry, didn’t mean to scream—avoid the caps lock key: Asstard will use any two consecutive capitals as an disingenuous excuse to avoid engagement in a serious debate.
Sorry if I misinterpreted you.
Nah - even the most fundamental fundie thinks he’s a nut. Use JF for Jerry Falwell.
Oh sheesh. Now you make me feel bad for call you Asstard. OK, I apologize too. But I reserve the right to retract this apology if you pull that stuff again. K?
Fair’s fair. Apology accepted.
Just for your own edification, I’m not the only one who interprets the use of all caps as yelling.
Long posts in ALL CAPS is yelling. Single words or phrases is usually taken as emphasis.
OK, someone says that thinking that homosexuality is a sin is somehow an intrusion into the freedoms of people who are homosexual, or at least puts the person with such an opinion “in the camp of the enemy” that must be resisted for the sake of freedom.
To get away from the emotionally charged issue of homosexuality, let’s take a different sin. I believe that shopping is a sin. (For the record, I really do, it’s based on biblical authority, and it isn’t a made up example.) Now, I don’t go to the Mall and berate the shoppers to mend their ways. I don’t think that serves the Lord. I know it doesn’t fall within the spirit of the Constitution. I have no desire to force the rest of the nation to give up shopping because of secular law. I don’t think that would provide any spiritual benefit. What I do is to try to control my own behavior, and avoid shopping. I know that it is evil, and I try to not do it. But, of course, I fail.
Now, according to the same logic that makes anyone who thinks homosexuality is a sin an enemy of homosexuals, I am an enemy of anyone who shops, and I support the cause of anti consumer bigotry. That’s simply not true. I am a sinner. I know a lot of sinners, and I love them. Sin is failing to follow the example of the Lord. But the failure is an offense only to God, not to secular authority. Only the Lord can be legitimately offended by sin. I try not to sin because I love Him, not because some preacher says horrible things about me.
Now, I know that a lot of people are condemning homosexuals, and blaming it on Christ. I really hate that. I don’t hate it because I disagree with their definition of sin; I hate it because they are using Christ’s name to promulgate their own hatred. Legalisms are trivial; it is hate in God’s name that I despise.
In a discussion with Christian Homosexuals, in an appropriate environment, and with an assurance that everyone involved will seek only to learn of the hearts of the other participants, I would be willing to discuss whether some other person’s behavior is sinful. But I would be very uncomfortable doing it. Sin is a very private matter, between one person, and the Lord. It isn’t about the laws of the nation, or the several states. It is about bringing our hearts before the Lord, to be loved, and forgiven. I won’t be involved in any other discussion of someone else’s sin. I encourage my brothers in faith to be very cautious about doing it, too.
The legal punishment of sin is dangerous to faith, and contrary to the First Amendment. I will, and have spoken out against the Bush Amendment. But then, I pretty much speak out against everything Bush believes and says. But I also speak out against it from the point of view of faith, as well as law. So many Christian politicians seem to feel more faith in politics than in God. And their followers seem to have more respect for their leaders than for their Lord. Prayer in school, religious mottoes on money, state approval sought for holy sacraments, it all seems stood on its head, from a religious point of view. Who wants the school to teach prayer? Look how well they do with Arithmetic. You have to love the Republican Party more than both your God, and your children to support that one.
But, the generalization that everyone that believes in sin, must therefore hate sinners is not true. It is an easy way to lie to oneself about what is expected of us by the Lord, but that too falls short of His example.
Tris
From gobear’s post:
Lord Ashtar did not say that “no fundies hate gays.” If fact, he did admit that some are trying to mess with your life. These are the fundamentalists which he would include in the group known as the Religious Right.
I refer you again to the encyclopedia article linked by Epimetheus:
This article (which is really worth a read) describes the Religious Right as “a broad consortium of conservative, Protestant Christians, which includes not only Fundamentalists, but also Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and conservative (Confessing Movement) members from mainline churches, some Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, and others.”
gobear, with all due respect, maybe you should take another look at the politics involved.
The same article would disagree with your comments about the Southern Baptists:
"In Protestant Christian denominations modern Fundamentalism was born in controversy, and militantly perpetuates controversy. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention has had persistent conflicts instigated by fundamentalists attempting, successfully, to resist a drift of their denomination away from commitment to historical Christianity, toward control by liberal factions."
Yes, there are liberal Southern Baptists!
There are conservative Episcopalians!
There are fundamentalists who aren’t anti-gay!
These are not just “exceptions” to the rule. Sometimes they are growing factions. Sometimes they are the remnants of what was once the prevailing view.
On thing that MrVisible said that I have no answer for: Where are the fundamentalist organizations that support gay marriage? I have linked to a couple of Christian sites that are supportive of lesbians and gays, but I don’t know if they are fundamentalists.
(Aside: A family friend who has been out for a long time is on West Wing tomorrow night. She is such a incredible person that if she were the only lesbian in the world, I would still be pushy about her rights. You can tell that she is a good actress – she’ll be playing a Republican! )
Libertarian: I don’t know that I’d ever read those two Scriptures quite that way or thought about them in combination. Perfect! I will have to look them up. I owe you an apology anyway for being a little judgmental myself. Sorry.