may i suggest that anyone wishing to avoid a case of jaundice DO NOT read these books.
THE DARK SIDE OF CHRISTIANITY by Helen Elerbe
THE BOOK YOUR CHURCH DOESN’T WANT YOU TO READ by Tim Leedom
don’t tell any christians about the contents they will conclude you are ignorant, stupid of both.
my dear Polycarp, my remarks are always CONDITIONED.
Dal Timgar
jshore: But, but, Kimstu, with all due respect for history, we are living in the present. The stance of sects at this moment should not be totally dismissed as irrelevant! I guess the question of which “on the whole” is more anti-gay comes down to whether you define “on the whole” in some historical long-view…Or, in terms of the current religious/political climate. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the latter completely.
Okay, fine (we are not so near the End Times that in addition to agreeing with Mr. Z. and Daniel I have to quarrel with jshore! :)), but my point is kind of that you can’t really separate the “historical long-view” from the “current religious/political climate” in this case. The traditional view of homosexuality in Judaism still has a profound effect today: Reform Judaism may accord homosexual unions equal status with heterosexual ones, but I know Orthodox Jews don’t, and I seriously doubt that Conservative Jews do. To say that Orthodox Jews are heavily outnumbered nowadays by more liberal sects is not to say that the traditional views they hold aren’t still quite influential outside Orthodoxy. (And Orthodox Jews themselves may be few in number, but they are hardly invisible or irrelevant: one of the guys who may be our next Vice-President is, I believe, Orthodox, or at least pretty conservative Conservative; there is also, of course, the infamous Dr. Laura, as well as the religious right in Israel.) The influence of a millennia-long religious bias against homosexuality is not really shrugged off in the course of a few decades.
Responses, responses…
**Jodi wrote:
First, the link you provided for Methodism – the one of interest to me since I am a Methodist – does not bear out this conclusion. Far from indicating that “those voices are drowned out,” that article indicates that “those voices” belong to people that stormed the stage, walked out, and
were arrested in the wake of the governing body refusing to relax the “party line” on homosexuality. Indeed, the article indicates that this issue has become so contentious and important that it may well cause a true schism in the church.**
When I read this article, originally, I too, felt sorry for the Methodist Church. To go thru a schism over, what I consider, a minor issue seems ridiculous in the extreme. And unfortunately, the conservative elements won the day. That’s what hurts so much, that no matter how much fighting nothing changed. The Methodists still maintain their anti-homosexual doctrine.
I do agree with the other points you bring up, however.
The only other point I can make here is this; I’m not a Christian and I truly hold no hatred for the Christian church. What they decide to practice and why is up to them and generally has no influence on me.
I get angry at the Christian church when they try to incorporate their morality into secular law. Whenever some law that has something to do with homosexuality is being debated at any level of government, it’s only a matter of time 'til someone brings up the immorality of homosexuality and how it’s “against the Bible!” This often takes place with the backing of the local ministry and it’s often an inter-demoninational effort.
That is why I believe that the Christian churches bash me and why I feel I have to fight them.
**DITWD wrote:
Read your sites again. Not ONE of those had an “offical policy” of homsexuality being, as you said “anti-Christian & unable to be Christian”.**
You’re right. I retract the comment that they maintain it’s impossible to be homosexual and a Christian. However, the language in all the doctrinal statements is still anti-homosexual. It maintains the impossible stance of “hate the sin, lover the sinner.” We’ve been over that particular point too many times so I won’t belabor it here.
Please see my statements above to Jodi why I still feel the need to fight the Church, despite the increasing number of gay-accepting congregations.
Freyr:
So do many of us Christians.
True. And ridiculous. Next time, how about tossing back lending money at interest. That’s very much condemned in Scripture. But you don’t see the local churches picketing the First National Bank or the Savings and Loan very often.
To quote a number of B-movie Westerns: “Don’t shoot me! I’m on your side!” (And that would come from Jodi, Tom~, and a lot of other Christians.)
Choose your enemies carefully. 
And as I have said, there are many Christian Churches with no anti-gay policies at all. My Church, for eg, does not even condemn Homosexuality as a sin. We recognize only the 2 sins that JC himself condemned: intolerance, and hurting others. Thus, in my eyes, an intolerant anti-gay policy, such as the Southern Baptists clearly have- makes THEM sinners. By tarring all Christian churches with the same brush, even tho not all of them deserve it- you are being as bigoted as some of them are. Some of the Christian sects, as well as several other religions, are intolerant- but by no means all. Confine your hatred to those that deserve it.
Oh man, this had me laughing my ass off… Can I quote you?? Not because what you said is so funny, but because of how it’d look…
“That is a reason that I “bash” certain practices of certain Christians… They fucking annoy me” -Satan
Sorry to go off topic folks.
Well, to be perfectly fair, there are reams of theology excusing usury in most circumstances. The Scriptures just required a bit of…interpretation.
MR
**DITWD wrote:
And as I have said, there are many Christian Churches with no anti-gay policies at all. My Church, for eg, does not even condemn Homosexuality as a sin. We recognize only the 2 sins that JC himself condemned: intolerance, and hurting others. Thus, in my eyes, an intolerant anti-gay policy, such as the Southern Baptists clearly have- makes THEM sinners. By tarring all Christian churches with the same brush, even tho not all of them deserve it- you are being as bigoted as some of them are. Some of the Christian sects, as well as several other religions, are intolerant- but by no means all. Confine your hatred to those that deserve it.**
First off, I don’t hate Christians, I try not to hate anyone, tho people like Fred Phelps pushes my patience. I certainly get angry with those Christian congregations who try to legistate their morality into secular law.
Which brings me to this point; some Christian congregations try to legislate their morality. When they do so, they often try to speak for all of Christianity. Where are you when they’re doing this? Where are the voices of the churches that are pro-gay or at least indifferent? Those voices are often NOT heard or drowned out by the fundamentalist congregations. Your silence on the issue implicitly gives them authority to speak for all Christians rather than only their own congregations.
By remaining silent, especially in the public eye, you allow the fundamentalist congregations to speak for all Christianity. No matter how much you tell us your own congregation is accepting and tolerant, the public preception is quite different.
**PolyCarp wrote:
To quote a number of B-movie Westerns: “Don’t shoot me! I’m on your side!” (And that would come from Jodi, Tom~, and a lot of other Christians.)
Choose your enemies carefully.**
Okay, I won’t shoot you, you’re only the organ player. 
On a slightly more serious note, finding which people are and are not the ememies is the hard part. It’s not like you people wear badges or anything 
Hmmm…what symbol would say “I am an accepting/inclusive Christian”? I thought of two fish with Mars/male arrows, modified from the double-Mars symbol often used for male gay couples. But that’s sexist…“Sure we like gay couples, but those Lesbians? Their hiking boots are tearing up the carpet!!”
Maybe it takes a simple modification of gaydar?
“Be neither a borrower, nor a lender”
How many ways can you twist that?
Remaining silent? I am speaking out here, am I not? And this forum does get world-wide spread. I also write letters to editors, and twice to the “opposing” Churches. We are often “drowned out by fundamentalist congregations”, true, but that is becuase “Church bans gays” makes headlines and “Church is Tolerant” does not. Don’t blame us for the vagracies of the Press. We do what we can.
Instead of blaming us, help us. You can show those intolerant sects to be even more wrong by showing there are other sects who also follow the Word, who are tolerant. Thus, this weakens their claim that they are acting on “the Word of God”.
With all due respect, I do believe that for every post you make denouncing assholes who make a mockery of your faith to believers and non-believers alone, there are ten posts you make giving people shit for the terminology they use in denouncing same assholes.
Yer pal,
Satan
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, two weeks, four days, 18 hours, 14 minutes and 27 seconds.
8070 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,008.80.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 30 minutes.
*THE YANKEES WIN! THAAAAAAH YANKEES WIN!
1996 · 1998 ··· WORLD CHAMPIONS ··· 1999 · 2000
26 Titles! The #1 Dynasty of all-time!
And most importantly… RULERS OF NYC!!
Gee, that’s harsh. I was only going to pick on him for thinking there is more than one sect which follows the Word.
**DITWD wrote:
Remaining silent? I am speaking out here, am I not? And this forum does get world-wide spread. I also write letters to editors, and twice to the “opposing” Churches. We are often “drowned out by fundamentalist congregations”, true, but that is becuase “Church bans gays” makes headlines and “Church is Tolerant” does not. Don’t blame us for the vagracies of the Press. We do what we can.**
It’s great that you speak out here but how many elected officials and church official read and make policy decisions based off of what they read on SDMB? Granted Cecil IS the smartest person, but I’ve yet to hear of many public officials who read SDMB for information.
What you need to do is write to your various public officials and church officials about this problem. Stand up and be heard at city council and state legislature meetings. I don’t know how church officials are chosen, but letting them know that large numbers of the membership are unhappy with policy might work to change things.
Regarding the press, I fully understand. When I lived in Milwaukee, WI, I managed the Pride Parade for a couple years. What really peeved me was the press coverage we got. For the hundreds or thousands of people in the parade, the TV cameras always zoom in on the big bearded guy in a tutu and nothing else. Part of the mission of the parade was to show society we’re not that different from any other minority, yet you’d never know that by our press coverage. 
Instead of blaming us, help us. You can show those intolerant sects to be even more wrong by showing there are other sects who also follow the Word, who are tolerant. Thus, this weakens their claim that they are acting on “the Word of God”.
I can’t help you. This is an internal problem for the various Christian churches. As I’ve said many times before, I’m Wiccan. I can only offer helpful advice and politely point out what I see as problems.
**PolyCarp wrote:
Hmmm…what symbol would say “I am an accepting/inclusive Christian”? I thought of two fish with Mars/male arrows, modified from the double-Mars symbol often used for male gay couples. But that’s sexist…“Sure we like gay couples, but those Lesbians? Their hiking boots are tearing up the carpet!!”**
Here’s a suggstion. At Uni. Wisc. in Milw, we had a program called “Safe Space” whereby a small symbol was used to indictate that the person staffing that office was gay friendly. It’s a green ring with a pink triange (point down) in it all on a white field. Try something like that, such the symbol suggested above, but include a gold latin cross. How’s that sound?
Maybe it takes a simple modification of gaydar?
Naw, I got my as used Army surplus and it’s never worked right.
Ooo, I got one! How about a cross with two Mars (male) and two Venus (female) symbols, one at each end of each bar of the cross, and diagonal lines connnecting the ends too? You could have the vertical and horizontal bars connecting M to F, and then diagonal lines connecting M to M, M to F, F to F, and F to M. Fill in the diamond formed by the diagonals in pink, and you’ve got a cross on a pink diamond with all males and females connected in Christ! You like?
in a previous post i mentioned a book by Helen Elerbe, i said the name was:
THE DARK SIDE OF CHRISTIANITY
this is incorrect, the name is:
THE DARK SIDE OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY
not quite the same thing. SORRY!
Dal Timgar
