[QUOTE=gobear]
Of course! So that is why you criticized Liberal Christian churches (at the same time implying they weren’t “reasonable”) because you don’t think they’re doing enough to fight the fundamentalists:
Doh! My previous message should have been:
Of course! So that is why you criticized Liberal Christian churches (at the same time implying they weren’t “reasonable”) because you don’t think they’re doing enough to fight the fundamentalists:
Neato!
First off, I’d start by preaching not just tolerance, but acceptance, and decry the hatred that’s being preached in the name of Christ. (I’d love to have the opportunity to speak in front of a congregation.) I’d get together with local gay and lesbian community organizations, and coordinate church activities with theirs; plan events together, get the members of both groups together socially, and find out what the volunteer needs of the GLBT center were, so that I could urge my congregation to help out.
I’d keep abreast of pro-gay protests scheduled and announce them, and encourage members to participate. I’d keep abreast of anti-gay protests, and be there, with banners proclaiming the church name and our pro-gay stance, and as many members of the congregation as possible every time. I’d contact local television stations, and try and get interviewed whenever a local event of any relevance to this issue occurred, so as to get an alternate christian perspective coverage on the news.
I’d make sure to testify at any local government hearing on any legislation pertaining to this issue, using my credentials as a religious leader to speak out for equality for gay people. I’d keep an eye on anti-gay email glurge, and have members of my congregation ready with ripostes. I’d start an campaign to get as many christians as possible to email the various lobbying organizations saying that their political ambitions founded on bigotry and hatred are unacceptable to actual christians, so they should stop saying they speak for all of us.
And this is all without spending a dime, and without any backing from a central church. And that’s just what I came up with in ten minutes. In reality, most churches do give to charity, funds which can be partially channeled into this cause. And churches usually belong to denominations which weild much more political clout than a single church would. And yet, I don’t see any of this actually happening.
Instead, I see enormous amounts of damage being done to the lives of millions of people in your name, using the same resources that are available to you.
gobear, you’re right. You’re not a second-class citizen. You’re a no class citizen.
And you’re wrong.
Becuae YOU brought it up, I questioned the depth of your commitment. Is asking qaurstions equivalent to attacking? Is it? And I use so-called because you, Metacom, haven’t shown me much in the way of reason.
Do you think that they are doing enough? Do you disagree with the statement that Fundamentalism and the bigotry and intolerance that they are trying to force on everyone is the public face of Christianity at this point in time? Unless you can answer yes to one or both of those questions (and, I hope, explain why this is so) there is not much more to talk about. Christianity has been hijacked. My deepest sympathies to the folks that happen to be Christian and do follow the message of love (note: not sarcasm. I really am sorry that this has happened to something that you folks hold dear).
And you are a slimy piece of worm-ridden filth. Go away, the adults are talking.
Cite?
My mistake–I thought that when you said this:
You were attacking liberal Christians as unreasonable. Now that you’ve clarified that it was really me you were attacking, I’m gonna remove my dimwitted, unreasonable self from this thread.
So you **do equate asking questions with being attakced. Why am I not surprised?
Go ahead and run if you don’t have the stomach for argument.
Oh, man. Now you’re never going to get to reply to my inspired post regarding your interesting hypothetical.
It’s easy to draw that line. The moment they substitute mythology for science (creationism, young earthism, etc) or argue that being gay is a “choice” you’ve got a fundie who is undeserving of respect or consideration.
Sorry, I returned a little late:
Do you mean that believing that someone who is flat-out, cold-dead can come back to life is not contradicting EVERYTHING we know?
How? How is that less of a leap of faith?
Hasn’t there been ample proof, medical proof, given that it simply is not possible for a man to rise from the dead after three days? Or for a man to raise another man from the dead?
Actually, I am guessing that that would be harder to swallow than some belief about what happened 6,000 or how many kajillion years ago. Because people can convince themselves that, “Well, that happened so many years ago and no one was there to witness it.” Where with coming back to life after three days—shit man, everyone pretty much knows that it is medically impossible. It goes against everything that we know.
So you’re saying that it’s okay and not too illogical and ignorant to believe that Gods can do some completely, absolutely, totally provably impossible things, but not other completely, absolutely, totally provably impossible things?
Sorry, that doesn’t make any sense.
The whole thing doesn’t make any sense. God waves his magic wand and makes all sorts of impossible things happen. Why is one impossible thing okay to believe, while believing in another impossible thing is deemed “ignorant”?
I can’t believe something naming itself “mug” just said that. It’s awfully close to my handle, goddammit
gobear; For what it’s worth: I’m behind you.
Show me a gay-positive church that has the political and economic power that FoF does.
This is the worst aspect of Fundie pop-culture; the fact that their pundits get press and their lobbyists have clout.
In the battle for public opinion/political influence, Fundies vs. rational humanitarians is as easily decided as Spanish Armada vs. toddlers with starfish-shaped sponges.
Why?
Why can’t I simply believe what I wish to believe, and leave others to believe what they wish to believe? :shrug:
So some of us believe in totally unprovable, completely illogical religious “bullshit” (or so it would seem from the outside). Cool. Whatever, dude. It all sounds crackpot from the outside, I understand that.
What I don’t understand is why some brands of totally unprovable, completely illogical religious bullshit are somehow acceptable to believe, while others are not.
As long as the totally unprovable, completely illogical religious bullshit is not hurting others, then it doesn’t really matter. Of course, when the totally illogical religious bullshit is harmful to others or society, then that’s a different matter. And that’s the difficult part. Some will argue that anything that disagrees with their personal moral code is “harmful,” so it can be a judgment call. (Raising your kid vegetarian because of religious beliefs? Is that “harmful” or not? If the kid is healthy, some people might find no harm, but others might object to the kid being “brainwashed” into being veggie.) And of course, in many cases, of course, the harm is pretty blatant and obvious.
But sometimes, I don’t think “harm to others” can be so easily proven. I don’t think, “Well, they might do this” or “They might think that” is always good enough. Nor is, “Well, so-and-so who believes this crackpot thing did this bad thing, therefore, all people who believe this crackpot thing are probably going to do the same bad thing.”
:shrug: Hey, they can believe away. No skin off my nose. Seriously, I don’t care. I know that my beliefs sound crackpot to some others and I’m okay with that. So we’re all a bunch of flippin’ crackpots. 
The thing is, a lot of us have such “crackpot” beliefs, and yet, somehow, many of us are able to form complete sentences and read at the college level. Some of us even hold down highly skilled jobs and function in society on a fairly sophisticated level. Fancy that.
You’re making this too easy:
gobear, et al, have valid reasons for disliking these particular “others”. Ergo, no prejudice.
You know, I wish it were ignorance. Even better, I wish it were stupidity, or inbred genetic heritage, or even regional isolation. If those were the root sources of bigotry, the problem would be so easy to solve. Just educate everyone, and there the problem goes.
But it isn’t ignorance. It’s hatred. And it isn’t stupidity. Bigots considered as a group include some ignorant people, and some stupid people, and some Christians, and some atheists, and some Nobel Prize winning scientists. And the worst result of your characterization that it’s “fundies using their ignorant religion to persecute gays” is that all the other bigots just keep on voting, and campaigning to make your life a living hell. And they don’t do it out of ignorance, or stupidity. They do it because they hate you.
And you know what? In the end doesn’t matter a fig when I think the world was created, or what I think will happen to you after you die. What matters is how I treat you, and what I try to do to you while we are alive. It isn’t my religion you hate, although you rant about it to the exclusion of valid points about my putative prejudices. What you hate is the fact (supposed) that I hate you.
Why get sidetracked?
For me, there is a very valid reason to pursue the point of the Lord’s condemnation of hatred, and to deny that He wants the path of righteousness to be compelled by civil authority. It matters a lot to me, because I am a Christian, and must speak out to those who invoke His name to justify their bigotry. But what’s in it for you? You don’t believe Jesus is Lord. Why do you care what He said, or did, or how long the earth has been here? What possible connection could that have to the matter of civil law, and the separation of Church and State? Do you think that homophobes who got excommunicated would suddenly stop hating you?
I will not be compelled to defend my Lord from the assertions of either end of this hate fest. I am His servant, and I have His word before me. He says I should love my neighbor as myself, and I will try to do so. He has not bid me to reform the law to coincide with my interpretation of His will. He has said, rather, to give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto the Lord what is the Lord’s. Now days Caesar is the Constitution, and I shall give unto what is its. That means I will vote against this proposed amendment, and I will do so because it is wrong, and contradicts the entire history of our nation. Religious freedom means that the State can not, and must not be allowed to enforce religion.
Politically, I oppose any imposition of secular control over matters of faith. I think Holy Matrimony is the proper concern of the individual church, which performs the Sacrament, and the participants. And wherever three or more of us are gathered in one place, there is God, and there is Church. Now we, the human members of that church must be responsible for our own words, and deeds, and when those act are based in hatred, and cause harm to another, they become proper matters for civil concern.
I find the political opinions and actions of many organizations to be hideous, and based on hate, and fear. I include some churches in that group. But it is their actions that I find odious, not their spirits. I fail to see how the sanctity of marriage can be affected by anyone other than the two married people, and the church they attend. (In truth, I find it pitiable that so many feel that their church, their love, and their faith can be so easily overthrown by what they perceive as someone else’s sin.) I really think we need to bring the uninvited “legitimization” of marriage by the state before the courts, and enjoin the states, and the federal government from violating the first amendment to the Constitution by assuming authority over this religious matter.
But that is all defense of my Faith, and my right to follow it. It has no bearing in any way on the fact that I don’t hate you. It means nothing about my secular prejudices. My argument against those who preach the hatred of God is a religious matter, and is also not subject to civil review. But when someone uses their religion to justify acts that are criminal, the acts are not protected. Acts are criminal, not beliefs.
Tris
I don’t have a dog in this fight. I do however find it interesting that if this quote was targeting Muslims instead of Christians that this board would instantly go up in flames.
[/end hijack] Carry on.