I ran across the site Gay Harmony and just had to mention it.
From the site:
In too many places and churches a "gay Christian" is seen as some sort of contradiction, but I have come to learn firsthand that there is a place for people of all sexual orientations in Christ’s Church.
Whether you are looking for a life partner, a Bible study partner, or just someone to hang out with, Gayharmony™ is the place for you. It’s fun, interactive, safe and anonymous – until you decide to take it further.
Why is it that homosexuals want to be part of the insane Christian posse, an organization that openly ridicules and openly discriminates against people of their nature?
If anyone can shed some light on this I would appreciate it. As for Gay Harmony, keep on trucking brother! I just wish I understood.
No related posts.

“Why is it that homosexuals want to be part of the insane Christian posse, an organization that openly ridicules and openly discriminates against people of their nature?”
Well, being neither christian nor gay, I can only speculate. I suspect it’s because the Christian religion isn’t “an organization” that discriminates and ridicules. It is many organizations, many of which have historically persecuted and ridiculed.
Jesus, however, was, by all accounts, remarkably accepting of people that fell out the normal realm of acceptable persons. Some Christians take such behaviour as an indication that Jesus would not judge people based on sexual preference. If, as a Christian, one can get past some elements of the old-testament (something Christians almost have to do to support the basic Christian theses), and assert Jesus’ example as more important, then one could believe in Jesus and not see any conflict with being homosexual.
But I understand the thrust of the question – why even play in that playground? Faith is hard to explain. If you believe in Jesus and in the core doctrines of Christianity in an interpretive framework that allows for homosexuality, then guess what – you’re a gay Christian.
Denominations have been founded on smaller points of theological difference, so it’s hardly surprising that what I think are called “affirming churches” would arise and distinguish themselves from traditional christian denominations.
c.
“It is many organizations, many of which have historically persecuted and ridiculed.”
That’s exactly it. When you look at it this way, Christian faith isn’t hard to explain at all.
Because Christianity isn’t an organisation, it’s better understood as a philosophy or an idea. It’s an idea with a lot of adherents, all of whom have different ideas, but (for the most part) still hang around the same themes.
One thing that most people, indeed many Christians, don’t seem to understand is that Christianity was originally a fringe liberal movement within Judaism. It was never designed to be “in charge”, and has always done poorly when it was. Indeed, a lot of the central themes, when understood historically, are about throwing off the sometimes quite rigid hierarchies and formalisms of previous religions. It’s all about you and your relationship with your deity.
Given that, “Gay Christian” doesn’t seem like such a contradiction at all.
Now having said that, both testaments speak (very, VERY briefly, and for the most part circumspectly) on the topic of homosexual behaviour. A traditionally theological yet still sensible Christian might understand “Gay Christian” as a contradiction much like “Buddhist Christian”. Like Buddhists, homosexual people probably don’t want to play in that playground, as you say.
Well, following on what was said sortof, the way I see it is that modern Christianity is an exercise in cognitive dissonance. A lot of people tend to be ‘somewhat’ Christian, or for example there are a lot of Christians that love people of different faiths and don’t try to convert them (despite believing that eternal damnation awaits their loved ones). Or hold beliefs that the Bible is only a loose set of guidelines to be interpereted however they choose (which can make for much more tolerant people, which is nice, but at the same time means they require no consistency). People have lots of ways of adapting an old religion (well, not that old as far as religions, I guess) to a new world. One where they have to live, work, and communicate with people of different beliefs and ways of life. The good news is that it’s hard to hate people once you get to know them, and they’re you’re friends and family. As in the famous qoute: “I love my dead gay son!”
So you’re a Christian, and one day you wake up and realize you’re gay. What do you do? Either go in for a bunch of self-flaggelation and try and get un-gayified, or shack up with some people who say that god says gay is a-ok.
And people don’t stop believing in god just because he doesn’t like them; hell, that’s half the point. People don’t like themselves, why should god? At least a lot of Christians seem to be of the view that god hates their deviant sexual desires (they covet their neigbor’s wife’s ass) and whatnot, but they don’t seem to care–they just want forgiveness. What the difference if god hates you because you masturbate or god hates you because you have sex with other people of the same gender?
I have two theories for you:
1. They so and so believed in Jesus and his stories before they discovered that they are gay. Given the fact that most people will not question their basic believes even if they were shown that they are wrong, they still want to be considered christians.
2. Imagine a homo- or bi-sexual person who comes from a christian family. What will the family act like when they find out he/she is gay? That’s right, they cast them out. So the title Gay Christian woudl go a long way of solving this problem.
I tend to think it’s a simple as people (some people) need to believe in something greater than themselves. Homo-, hetero- or whatever. Personally, I think it’s ridiculous to lie to yourself just because you can’t comprehend life, the universe and everything, but people as a whole are weak and lazy. People will trade away almost everything if you can give them a shiny enough trinket.
“Why is it that homosexuals want to be part of the insane Christian posse, an organization that openly ridicules and openly discriminates against people of their nature?”
gay people generally aren’t smarter than straight people, just gayer. (I’m not implying they aren’t as smart)
I doubt there’s a corelation between sexual orientation and intelligence like there is between atheism and intelligence.
I’m inclined to believe that folks go to church to generally abuse themselves. I’m being neither sarcastic nor snarky. Folks think they’re bad, so they go to church to be told they’re bad, then they’re given a “fix.” I’d think that if you’re conflicted about your sexual orientation, you might be prone to get whacked on some so you can feel bad about a part of yourself, in hopes of suppressing it.
There’s a pretty huge disconnect between AmeriChurch (which is what most of us refer to as “Christianity”) and what Jesus is reported as saying in the Bible. Christians use a lot of loaded language in a similar fashion though if you managed to get them to define or interpret the phrases they use it generally appears that you’ll get as many different meanings as the number of people you ask.
I don’t see why the message of Jesus conflicts with being gay, unless you’re James Dobson or Jerry Falwell and are bent on demonizing a particular group for your own political or financial gain.
I can’t see why so many Christians continue to take a stance against groups like this. As far as I remember the only real references to homosexuality and what to do about it are actually in the Old Testament, along with a lot of what Christians (who are supposedly following the New Testament) seem to follow. If I remember right again, Jesus was all about the “brotherhood of all men”, gay or not. It seems to me like that these homosexuals of the church seem to understand Jesus better than the people who are leading the church now.
if we made it illegal for gay people to jump off a bridge, they’d all be doing it.
frankly i am getting sick and tired of the bitching and whining coming from that community…
Um, it is illegal to jump off a bridge (suicide is outlawed in the US). Clearly your logic fails. If you’re sick of the whining, quit listening. I got sick of being preached at by fundamentalists, so I quit listening. It’s worked rather well.
i agree with you… they have a right to speak (which they do, often and loud) but i also have a right to dislike what they are saying and their general presence in the media etc. i really dont like being hit on by some fem guy in an elevator (happened 3 days ago)
What if some woman you hit on didn’t like it? Would she be a whiner also? I’m sick of xtians whining about how they’re so persecuted, bitch louder and more often than any other group then whine if someone else has a different opinion. And I’m not saying you’re xtian.
“i agree with you… they have a right to speak (which they do, often and loud) but i also have a right to dislike what they are saying and their general presence in the media etc. i really dont like being hit on by some fem guy in an elevator (happened 3 days ago)”
you certainly do… so? A gay person made you feel slightly uncomfortable, and possibly flattered… to the gas chambers!! The civilized thing to do would be to tell him you weren’t interested, and move on with your life. If he continued, he’d be subject to the same sexual harassment laws as straight men.
Why do you care anyways? My guess is that you’re a homophobe afraid of accepting the possibility that you’re just as likely to wake up one morning and realize you’re gay as the rest of us.
Criticize the homosexual lifestyle…and you’re a homophobe. That kind of thinking stifles the whole discussion.
I don’t like it when my dog shits on the carpet, but that doesn’t make me a caninephobe.
What about a crapaphobe ;)
if we take homophobe by its literal meaning, then yes you could call me that… in our society speaking out against their community has become a tabu, one which i am not affraid to break. homosexuality is a condition that is outside of the norm and i have a hard time accepting it as normal… don’t like dog crap either :-D
“Criticize the homosexual lifestyle…and you’re a homophobe. That kind of thinking stifles the whole discussion.
I don’t like it when my dog shits on the carpet, but that doesn’t make me a caninephobe.”
What if you woke up and realized you were attracted to the same sex? You would deny it and live a life that deepdown, you didn’t want. You would have to fight your urges or be persecuted by your friends and family, if they are anything like you. You don’t want to accept the possibilty of this, and why would you?
Simple criticism isn’t an indication of homophobia, but anger is. If you are angry at homosexuals, it is likely because you are afraid of what they represent and what you could become.
Your Father,
What if you woke up and realized you were attracted to 10-year old girls? You would deny it and live a life that deepdown, you didn’t want. You would have to fight your urges or be persecuted by your friends and family, if they are anything like you. You don’t want to accept the possibilty of this, and why would you?
Simply speaking, you fight the urge and live the norm. Sometimes, life is a bitch, but if fighting the urge to molest 10-year-old girls will make this a better place, then you do it.
I hate ham and seafood… I find both to be repugnant and disgusting because, well, they are. My friends all seem to like ham and seafood and try to impose their “norm” onto me when we go out. “Just try it, it’s delicious” they say.
I don’t need to harrangue on them because of their sinful ham and seafood-loving “lifestyle.”
It doesn’t seem to me that being gay (having a sexual preference/predisposition) is any different from being blessed with discerning tastebuds. (ham/seafood is among the most disgusting things people eat.)
When I was in high school the very few gay people I knew were constantly picked on and harrassed. Why would they have chosen to be gay? That makes no sense. No gay person I’ve ever talked to has ever said “I chose to be gay.”
It makes far more sense to me that being gay is akin to being predisposed to certain foods. I’m pretty hard-wired to like vaginas, just like I’m hard-wired to hate disgusting foods… why is gayness any different?
Rev.Dan,
Are you serious? You think a man wanting to stick his d*** into another man’s bu**hole is just being “different”?
What about those men that “chose” to like 10-year-old girls? Will you give them a break, too? (Remember,they’re not hard-wired like you.)
John, are you serious?
Homosexuality is not about anal sex. (This is especially true of lesbians.) Hell, lots of heterosexual couples do that too. Homosexuality is about who you’re attracted to and, perhaps more importantly, who you could fall in love with.
The fact is, everyone has an orientation. For example, a typical straight man has a certain subset of the adult female population that he would prefer to choose from. It’s different for everyone. Most guys tend to go for women from their own ethnicity first. Most smart straight guys really do not like stupid women. Some go for specific body types. Personally, I have a thing for redheads.
The same goes for straight women. And, by extension, it’s not hard to see that some men might simply prefer men and some women might simply prefer women.
As for disgusting foods… brussels sprouts ARE evil and should be banned. I just thought I’d put that out there.
Oh, one more thing.
“What if you woke up and realized you were attracted to 10-year old girls?”
There are good reasons why we don’t allow adults to have sex with 10 year olds. There do exist quite mature 10 year olds out there, but for the most part, lack of maturity and power disparity makes it hard to decide whether or not a 10 year old can really “consent” in the same way that a typical adult can.
There is a huge difference between sex between consenting adults and sex between an adult and a child who is not even biologically sexually mature.
I fail to see how fighting the urge to be homosexual matters at all, from a purely secular point of view. And I fail to see any difference from not being a practising homosexual sex and not being a practising Buddhist from an orthodox Christian theology point of view.
I’ll leave the final word to C.S. Lewis:
“I quite agree with the Archbishop that no sin, simply as such, should be made a crime. Who the deuce are our rulers to enforce their opinions about sin on us? — a lot of professional politicians, often venal time-servers, whose opinion on a moral problem in one’s own life we should attach very little value to. Of course, many acts which are sins against God are also injuries to our fellow-citizens, and must on that account, but only on that account, be made crimes. But of all the sins in the world I should have thought that homosexuality was the one that least concerns the State. Government is at its best a necessary evil. Let’s keep it in its place.”
– Letters of C.S. Lewis, ed. W.H. Lewis, page 281
Pseudonym:
Good points. Like you, I am an admirer of C.S. Lewis, but my argument is against those like Rev. Dan who think that just because a homosexual feels a certain way, it must be OK. My point was: Does that go for everyone who feels a certain way?
Who sets the rules here as to what is OK? C.S. Lewis? Rev. Dan? The Bible? The Government? God? Each individual?
If you say each individual, then my morality is every bit as valid as yours, as despicable as it may seem to you. If you claim any of the others, then you are setting up an authority over us all.
Again comparing homosexuals to pedophiles… obviously there’s a difference. Anyone can see it. Homosexuals aren’t hurting anyone, pedophiles are. Consentual gay relationships are not ethically wrong, and sexual relationships with children are.
Gay people certainly don’t harm you, and your previously mentioned (another post) health insurance rate increase due to anal sex is horribly invalid, as more anal sex is had by straight people.
Let’s just put buttsex aside for now. Let’s assume the world has gone the way of the dark ages and people start outlawing buttsex. If it happened, would you still have a problem with gay people who keep to contact you approve of? Is you’re problem really with gay people or kinky sex?
To John, I say this:
In America, the ideal (remember, not necessarily the way it is, but the way it was designed to be) is that we are free to believe and do whatever we want, however we want, SO LONG as it does not infringe on the rights or cause harm to others. If two people love each other, fine. If they are a man and a woman, okay. If they are a man and a man or a woman and a woman, so what? What will they do to you? Do images of gay people in Ohio or France haunt your dreams and keep you from sleeping at night? Do they taunt you in the street because you’re not gay?
Now as for a pedophile, 1.) A child by definition is immature and doesn’t understand potential consequences of sexual activities. 2.) A child is generally weaker than an adult and cannot typically defend themselves if they choose to say “No.” 3.) Such an experience can and does cause psychological damage to children. I know a family member who was molested, and it permanently screwed up their living. I’ve never met a gay person who was emotionally wrecked simply because they were gay. The only time there is an issue is when hateful bigots make them feel guilty or afraid.
I set my own personal rules for myself, based on criteria I accept. Be that Christianity or Flying Spaghetti Monster worship, that’s my own business. I don’t see how demonizing gays is productive.
I don’t agree with the notion that a society should enforce one view of religion, or one diet, or one sexual orientation. I agree that there needs to be a common law that protects those who cannot protect themselves, and that protects a minority-demographic from the majority. That’s the basic idea of Democracy… All people are created equal, have inalienable human rights, and should have the freedom to pursue happiness. Institutionlizing/legislating intolerance and prejudice is mutually exclusive to living in a Democracy.
> Are you serious? You think a man wanting to stick his
> d*** into another man’s bu**hole is just being
> “different�
You mean sticking a cock in an asshole? Or a penis in an anus? Sorry, but those are just words… they don’t have the power to shock me as much as ignorance and intolerance does.
I don’t think it’s “different,” per se, actually… I’d say it’s common. Men like to stick their penises (and fingers, and tongues) in lots of places, including women’s “bu**holes,” toilet paper tubes, socks, banana peels, kleenex, etc. (you can verify this for yourself… Do a Google search on “anal sex” or “penis” (or d***, etc.) + “-object name-” and I think you’ll find that all kinds of women and men and inanimate objects are involved. Why should I care? How does that affect me personally?
I have no problem with what consenting adults do with other consenting adults. Pseudonym’s points are far more articulate than mine, especially regarding the false argument equating homosexuality with pedophilia. Homosexuality is also not the same as polygamy, polyamory, or bestiality, akin to how bananas are not the same as bricks, a Honda Civic, or a lamp.
I do find the fact that so many Christians are obsessed with homosexuality to be kinda fascinating. It’s as if Christians think gays have superpowers or something. If all it took to gain superpowers was to have sex with a guy… I’d probably overlook my non-interest in gay sex and go for it, but probably only if I could choose the superpower. Small tradeoff… an evening of discomfort for the ability to fly? Tempting.
I didn’t choose to hate ham. I tried it and decided it was among the most vile foods in the world, for me. Lesson learned: don’t eat ham. I don’t see the point in going on an anti-ham crusade or demonizing ham for weaking the food supply.
I didn’t need to have sex with a man to know that I’m drawn to women (and their asses!). None of the gay folks I know have ever said they were drawn to women (beyond having heterosexually pushed on them and pretending to be interested to pacify family members), though several of ‘em dig breasts. There’s so much variety in terms of sexual preference that I think it’s quite dumb to look at things in purely black & white, heterosexual vs. homosexual, terms. Quite literally, you’re missing the rainbow. ;)
The only thing I think I disagree with that Pseudonym posted is the part about brussel sprouts… I think they’re delicious! If I ever had dinner with Pseudonym though, I don’t think I’d try to force ‘em on him/her, nor would I lecture or attempt to change Pseudonym for not being the same as me.
In pragmatic terms, I don’t see any legitimate difference between food preferences and sexual preference/orientation.
> If you say each individual, then my morality is every bit as valid as yours,
> as despicable as it may seem to you. If you claim any of the others, then you
> are setting up an authority over us all.
Another false argument. I believe in Democracy, not Theocracy. If I apply God’s rules (or more accurately, my interpretation thereof) to my life, why the hell should you care? Why if I read the Bible in my own bedroom… with OTHER PEOPLE? How or why would that affect or concern you? How is homosexuality any different?
I always like to bring up comparative logic here. Homosexuality is about feeling an attraction to a certain person due to certain characteristics. Gay men only find that spark in men. Lesbians only find it with women. I personally only find that spark with Brunettes that wear glasses (and be Damned to hell all you lovers of Clear-sighted blondes!). I did not so much go out one day and say “Hey, I’m going to willingly cut down my chances of getting a date by only being attracted to a very small subset of the human race.” If anything, you could almost say I’m stranger than gay people (at least that only switches which 50% you’re after).
Pedophilia is a different case entirely. At its core its not an issue of intimacy or sexual attraction. Our very genetics render us unattracted to those not capable of being sexually productive, its standard nature. The key in pedophiles is the concept of power. The attraction to someone that is so powerless against them is derived from a desire to own and control the will of another and derive pleasure from that, or conversely from a fear that sexual partners of their age would demand too much of them, owing to a stunted mental and sexual maturity. The former truely flies in the face of secular morals, as taking the will of another is a horrible thing to do and the second is representative of a person with deep-rooted psychological issues.
Neither of these causes are noted causes of homosexuality. The air of prejudice in America against gays (I can’t buy into the idea that there is a liberal media when every media outlet is complaining about the liberal media) often leads to deep introspection into the reasons for their attractions and often leads to a greater sexual maturity as a result. I have had multiple friends that came to grips with their own attraction to the same gender, some even going so far as to try to date as many members of the opposite sex as posible to try to find the right person that would make them straight, to no avail. Their outing to themselves and others came only after maturing, not because of a lack of it. As for the power issue, I’m not sure how a person would derive a sense of power over the other person simply because of them sharing the same gender. If anything one would assume that this evens the power field as both know the ins and outs of their partner’s physiologies.
Love and deep rooted chemical attraction is one thing; psychosies are another. When a person finds attraction to something after much soul searching or experimentation, its fine. When someone simply settles for the underbelly of sexuality out of internal fears and psychological instability, its a problem. Unless there’s a study not by a so-called Family Institute or that wasn’t done with the conclusion decided prior, that shows homosexuality to be a psychological disorder, I think that the homosexual~=pedophile argument is debunked and done with.
“Pedophilia is a different case entirely. At its core its not an issue of intimacy or sexual attraction. Our very genetics render us unattracted to those not capable of being sexually productive, its standard nature.”
Some people like feet. This certainly isn’t standard nature but it is not necessarily a sign of some sort of psychosis. I don’t think it would be accurate to say that all people with attraction to children suffer some sort of psychosis.
All I’m going to say is that people can be attracted to anything. An atraction to children is no less “natural” than an attraction to or love for feet or animals or members of any sex.
Don’t get me wrong, I am by no means defending pedophiles or belittling homosexuals. I just don’t think any type of attraction is absolutely a sign a psychological disorder.
Duely noted. My intention is not so much to push the issues of the offender, but to suggest that there is a big difference between consenting relations between adults, gender regardless, and relations caused by pedophilic attraction. Nature certainly didn’t design glasses, so I can’t really blame genetics on that one. There are, as you hit on, cases in research into pedophilia that revealed instances where no sexual or sociological imaturities or imbalances were found (I’m no psychologist, I’m a computer scientist, I only got what google and medical journal searches give me there).
I think Snurp really hit it on the head with this:
“Such an experience can and does cause psychological damage to children. I know a family member who was molested, and it permanently screwed up their living. I’ve never met a gay person who was emotionally wrecked simply because they were gay.”
Took me a while writing my reply, so that wasn’t there when I started mine, but its pretty consice as to what my major concern is. Some children become victimized by pedophiles, while gay men are not necessarily victimized by gay men (not saying it can’t happen but one has to imagine that the average homosexual encounter is not legally considered statutory rape).
Also from Rev. Dan:
“Homosexuality is also not the same as polygamy, polyamory, or bestiality, akin to how bananas are not the same as bricks, a Honda Civic, or a lamp.”
I think that’s a pretty good summary. One attraction regardless of reasons does not equal another attraction (Homosexuality(attraction to same sex)!=Pedophilia(attraction to children)). There is no proof that one kind of sexual preference MUST lead to another. Saying that being gay has a higher chance of leading to pedophilia is like saying that if I like bananas, I have a higher percent chance to eat them in a Honda Civic. Not really a logical conclusions there.
This is what I believe it means to be a Christian: to sincerely trust in the power of Christ’s sacrifice to cover your sins and restore you to a relationship with God as we were created to have. In doing so, you receive the power of the Holy Spirit which makes you able to commune with God and also live a righteous life (although not a perfect one, since we still live in “the flesh”).
Obviously, to be a Christian as I’ve attempted to define it there, you would need to believe in God, be convicted of sin, believe that sin actually exists… there’s a whole lot of assumptions. However, I wanted to show that if that is what it truly means to be a Christian, then obviously there is no discrimination between heterosexual or homosexual (or androgynous or whatever else) according to that definition. Relying on the promises of scripture, I affirm that God may call people from all walks of life into his family, regardless of sexual orientation, because the sacrifice of Jesus is sufficient to cover the sins of any person.
However, on theological and biblical grounds, I also believe that engaging in homosexual acts is sinful behaviour. I don’t exclude gay people from my life as a result – in fact, I have had a close friendship with a homosexual person in the past couple of years. I don’t believe that living a homosexual lifestyle is “worse” than any other sin. But it is still a sin. For the Christian, sin impedes our ability to see and savour the magnificence of Christ, which is our chief end in life. There is an incongruity with a position that tries to reconcile Christian faith and living out a homosexual lifestyle, just as there is an incongruity with a position that tries to reconcile Christian faith and being actively proud and boastful, or any other sin. If being a Christian is ultimately about seeing and experiencing God, and homosexuality keeps one from being able to do that, then of course it is contradictory to affirm that one can actively aspire to live out both lifestyles.
Granted, there are those who do not believe that there is a coherent case against homosexuality in scripture. Personally, I am unable to see how anyone can arrive at that theological conclusion in good conscience, or at least without being ill-informed or arbitrary in their hermeneutics.
There’s a guy called Ron who has written an excellent article on his struggle to reconcile his faith and homosexual attractions – I tip my hat to him for his forthright and honest analysis. I would recommend it to anyone who wants a deeper insight into a Christian view on same-sex attraction.
http://www.gaychristian.net/rons_view.php
(Oh, and btw, I just bought a brand new Honda Civic.)
“Granted, there are those who do not believe that there is a coherent case against homosexuality in scripture. Personally, I am unable to see how anyone can arrive at that theological conclusion in good conscience, or at least without being ill-informed or arbitrary in their hermeneutics.”
There’s nothing in “christianity” that isn’t subject to interpretation. Even you and whatever priest you listen to probably have different views on atleast one topic of christianity. Since NONE of it can be proven or disproven, no points of view are more or less valid than any others. Scriptures can’t be proven to be accurate or well translated or properly interpretted or even not completely made up. So why not let people believe what they want. After all… you do.
pretend those quotes around christianity arent there plz kk thx O_o
> then obviously there is no discrimination between
> heterosexual or homosexual (or androgynous or whatever
> else) according to that definition.
Androgyny is having a gender-neutral appearance, ie.- “Pat” from Saturday Night Live. It’s a mismatch in your list. Perhaps you meant “bisexual,” which basically means “no sexual gender preference?”
Scriptural criticism aside, Your Father, Christians *should* strive to live according to their mythology, just as Flying Spaghetti Monster followers should live according to theirs. If Christians are citing the Bible as source material, they’re hard-pressed to justify being judgemental towards anyone, let alone justifying hate groups like “Focus on the Fags.”
When Christians try to thwart or usurp Democracy (which is Freedom for All, including gays) by attempting to legislate their morality, that’s when the rest of us rightfully cry “foul.”
Christianity has been given a bad rap by Christians; the most anti-AmericanChristian book I’ve ever read is the Bible. It’s time for Christians to dethrone jackasses like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc., etc. and start acting like the Jesus in the Bible.
Personally, I’d really like to see Christians shut the fuck up about everybody else and start practicing their “True Religion” as communicated by Christ: “Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.” It doesn’t say “Do unto other believers as you’d have them do unto you, and do your damnedest to make other people’s lives more difficult.”
The only people Jesus scrapped with were the religious leaders, who were all about law, legalism, and trying to force others to follow in their footsteps (or Jesus’) and adhere to their interpretation of Scripture.
The big anger event of Jesus was overturning the tables in the temple, because it had turned into a money-making machine. I think these are both good Scriptural examples of how Christians aren’t being Christians. They’ve traded their freedom (slavery to Christ, in Christianeese) for blind obedience to a power-hungry money machine. It’s quite sad, really.
Christians need to quit obsessing about other people’s genitals and how, when, where and with whom they use ‘em. It’s none of their business.
“God’s Law” applies to those who “follow God.” The Bible says “the law is not for the lawkeeper, but for the lawbreaker,” meaning that it’s for Believers/Followers who wish to apply the Bible’s rules, regulations, and patterns to their lives. If you don’t subscribe to Christian mythology, “God’s Law” doesn’t apply to you. In Christianeese, it’s the “Holy Spirit’s job” to “convict” one (change one’s heart). It’s not the church’s.
If Christians started practicing their alleged beliefs
“True religion is this: to care for widows and orphans.” Why not go that route, Christians, instead of wasting time demonizing and beating on a demographic that’s been taking abuse for centuries? Why not take the high road and practice what you allegedly believe and let God sort the rest out?
The rest of us have seen y’all abuse others for so long that you’ve essentially lost your credibility (as a demographic). Why would anyone want to listen to close-minded, willfully-ignorant bigots and hypocrites who have substituted blind belief (Faith) for reason?
It’s time for y’all to quit talkin’ and start walkin’. Maybe when the Christian demographic starts effecting positive change in the world by feeding the hungry, taking care of the sick and eldery, and so forth, some of the rest of us might actually consider what you have to say. Isn’t it worth trying?
Rev. Dan,
With all due respect, look around! Faith-based organizations are on the front lines in feeding the homeless, building homes for the poor and elderly, providing shelter, clothes, and food for orphans, and helping AIDS victims both at home and abroad. Many of these faith-based organizations are Jewish and Muslim, but most of them are Christian.
One of the largest orphanages in the U.S. operates out of Dallas, Texas, called Buckner Children’s Home, and is totally financed from Baptist churches in Texas.
When Katrina hit in New Orleans, churches from all over America loaded up trucks and trailers and headed to the Gulf to tend to the people’s needs. Some of those trucks got there before the government did.
In Texas, churches from Houston, Austin, San Antonio, and Dallas took in thousands of families displaced by Katrina. Many of those evacuees have not returned to New Orleans because faith-based organizations, such as Christian churches, helped them find jobs and housing.
People don’t realize that most Christian missionaries are not preachers or evangelists, but are doctors, nurses, carpenters, teachers, farmers, truck drivers, and lots of other support personnel.
I’m not saying that non-Christians don’t have compassion for the downtrodden, but from where I sit, I see lots of Christians trying to follow Christ’s teachings.
> People don’t realize that most Christian missionaries are not
> preachers or evangelists, but are doctors, nurses, carpenters, teachers,
> farmers, truck drivers, and lots of other support personnel.
Very true, FanOfCSLewis, and your general point taken.
However… there are also a number on non-Faith-based organizations which do the same unarguably good and beneficial things without pushing their religious agenda or westernizing the culture they’re assisting, and who do so without wide media recognition. Honestly, I think they’re on higher moral ground than Faith-based organizations which ultimately use aid as a marketing tool, regardless of whether or not they’re directly preaching/teaching.
American media, particularly “news” organizations, generally don’t report aid and goodness performed/executed because it doesn’t sell. “If it doesn’t bleed, it doesn’t lead” is an entirely too prevalent mentality. Perhaps there really is an overemphasis on the religious fucktards, however, the media has wide influence. The vitrol, bullshit, and intolerance spewed by Jackasses for Jesus like Falwell gains a lot momentuum in the Christian community.
My beef with christians is that they’re entirely too willing to follow religious media whores like Dobson, Robertson, et al who are all about external appearances vs. internalization of the teachings of Jesus. The majority of AmeriChristians are far more prone to follow their pastor, Paul and Jan Crouch, or the christian media celebrity (or movement) of the month, and are far more interested in reading the horseshit put out by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins than in reading the Bible.
Which is easier? Following Jesus (or the central figure[s] of your personal mythology) or bashing on fags?
I don’t know of anyone who looks down upon the actions of people who are doing something productive or beneficial for/to others, even if it’s not selfless. However, there are plenty of quite justifiable reasons to resist the overarching bent of AmeriChurch, and the “Christian Political Agenda.”
Perhaps my comments would have been more resonant or at least less dissonant to you, FanOfCSLewis, if “Christian” had been in quotes, or I’d been more precise with capitalization throughout my comments. While I recognize the difference between Catholic and catholic, the Church and church, Christians and christians, I don’t know that I communicate precisely enough to indicate that I do.
I’m also personally more prone to communicate my dislike of Christianity specifically, as that’s what I was indoctrinated with from age five on. I have insight/understanding of Christendom that I don’t have of other mythologies. I quite correctly have a profound amount of disdain for the jackassery that’s remarkably present within Christendom, and quite correctly have a profound amount of respect for those who work to make the world a better place.
> One of the largest orphanages in the U.S. operates out of
> Dallas, Texas, called Buckner Children’s Home, and is totally financed
> from Baptist churches in Texas.
Perhaps I am jaded/cynical, but I’m still rightfully pissed that otherwise responsible and caring adults pushed a load of fairy tales down my throat and stated, matter-of-factly that it was “The Truth.” I’d hazard a guess that programs like the ones you’ve mentioned are often given “Outreach Metrics” to attain to or they lose funding. Relief and aid organizations which are “faith-based” are functionally marketing organizations. The motivation to help is often to gain proselytes.
Yes, there most certainly are faith-based-organizations which do not cram stuff down the throats of the people they’re helping. I put them in the “good guys” category. What I’ve seen and experienced is that there is a greater proclivity towards evangelism through aid than there is in merely providing aid.
Jesus didn’t command his followers to obsess about the sexuality (or lack thereof) of the rest of the world, and he didn’t advocate usurping the government to replace it with a Theocracy. I really do think christians should STFU, quit meddling, and y’know, be like Jesus.
That’s the crux of the biscuit.
As a point of clarification:
I’m not suggesting that just because faith-based-organizations have evangelistic goals that the aid they provide should be rejected. That’s just dumb… and what AmeriChurchians do.
People in need of aid should be able to receive that aid, unfettered by faith-based-ignorance or politics. To suggest otherwise is assinine.
@Your Father:
“There’s nothing in christianity that isn’t subject to interpretation.”
What do you mean by that? If you mean that you need to apply a consistent hermeneutic to the scriptures in order to arrive at what you believe the message of Christianity actually is, then I agree. If you are saying that you can never actually know anything conclusive about the correctness of your doctrine (as in, an appeal to some sort of postmodernist nihilism in which you can’t ever know anything), then I don’t agree.
“Even you and whatever priest you listen to probably have different views on atleast one topic of christianity.”
I don’t have to go to a priest to get my religion. :)
“Since NONE of it can be proven or disproven, no points of view are more or less valid than any others. Scriptures can’t be proven to be accurate or well translated or properly interpretted or even not completely made up.”
What exactly do you mean by “proven”? Of course, there’s no empirical, repeatable test you can run in which you end up with spiritual truth in a test tube. We can, however, attempt to measure things like the historical accuracy of the Bible – it stacks up very well in that department. Additionally, it is worthy of note (at least!) that there is a massive number of manuscript evidence available. Even if you don’t want to agree that the Bible is true or relevant or inspired by God or whatever, there is at least a lot of reason to believe that we know pretty much exactly what the original scriptures said.
@Rev
“Androgyny is having a gender-neutral appearance, ie.- “Pat†from Saturday Night Live. It’s a mismatch in your list. Perhaps you meant “bisexual,†which basically means “no sexual gender preference?—
Well, not really. I guess the main point I was trying to make was broader than just a gender/sexuality-related one, it’s just that that happens to be the current topic. I was simply trying to say that Christ accepts people regardless of status, sexuality, gender, income, hair colour, number of zits… there’s simply no discrimination at all. Not as I understand the biblical treatment of salvation, anyway.
@Ben:
Fair ’nuff, but that “correction” wasn’t aimed in your direction… unless you’re Ben *and* FanOfCSLewis. :)
> we know pretty much exactly what the original scriptures said.
“Original Scriptures” is a pretty suspect phrase, IMHO. The Council of Nicaea decided what to include and what to in the book we now refer to as “The Bible” at the command of Constantine. Catholics have bonus books which Protestants do not acknowledge.
If you mean “there’s historical evidence to support the authenticity of what we currently accept as the original texts the Bible” then I’m pretty much on your page, or at least accept that as being valid. I don’t mean to nitpick, but the statement is misleading as-is.
I disagree with the position that the accurate transmission of a set of documents throughout history verifies the historicity of the mythology therein. If this was the case, then perhaps we should be bowing to Homer’s gods. There are a number of artifacts which have been found which seem to demonstrate particular sections to be reasonably accurate. The jump in logic comes when one says “since x percent is true, then it must all be true, therefore since there’s some historical evidence (Josephus, for example) to support the Bible, then it’s all true.”
I’m taking a wild guess here, but it sounds like you’ve read Josh McDowell’s “Evidence That Demands a Verdict.” McDowell is right… the evidence demands a verdict, but my conclusions definitely differ from his.
I appreciate the Reformed position on Biblical Inerrancy. If the Bible is completely inerrant, then it’s a house of cards which should fall when one discovers and can prove a single error.
There are a ton of dumb arguments on the “Bible errors” side of the equation, like this one from the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible:
–
Jesus heals a boy with “a dumb spirit” by saying, “Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him and enter no more into him.” (Sounds like a script from Monty Python, doesn’t it?) But how could a deaf spirit hear the words spoken to it? And how could a dumb spirit cry out?
–
It looks to me that the “dumb spirit” is neither deaf nor dumb, but *causing* deafness and dumbness in the person it has possessed. One can have a debilitating disease, though the disease itself is not debilitated.
(For the record, I dig the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. Some of the points are quite valid though some, like this example, are stupid.)
McDowell’s book smacks down some stupid arguments like that one. He seems to offer refutation of dumb arguments as proof that Scripture is true, which is as equally false as the dumb argument itself.
> If you mean that you need to apply a consistent hermeneutic to
> the scriptures in order to arrive at what you believe the message
> of Christianity actually is, then I agree.
Exegesis is the process of taking an original text and trying to understand it in its original context. Hermeneutics is the process of taking good exegesis and applying it to a different culture. An interpretation built without good comprehension of the original historical context is inherently flawed.
A great illustration of the importance of good exegesis:
2,000 years from now archeologists uncover a Honda Civic (Honda should be giving me kickbacks for product placement) which is completely intact. On the bumper, they find a sticker which says “Come to L.A. and be treated like a King.” Scholars disagree as to what the meaning of the sticker. Some say “the culture of Los Angeles was extravagant and lavish for its time. People lived lives of extreme comfort and wealth relative to people in other parts of California. It must have been encouragement to come to Los Angeles to live an extravagant lifestyle.” Another scholar says “I think you’re mistaken. The reality is that Los Angeles was a diverse region wherein there was a large division between social class, with disparate socioeconomic status. It’s actually a cynical social commentary on the standard of living in Los Angeles, which was actually sub-standard for a majority of those living there.” Neither understood that it was a direct reference to Rodney King and the L.A. riots.
While it’s an unlikely story (I’d like to think that humanity has gotten better at recording and archiving media/history), it illustrates an important point. There are a number of sections of the Bible which have been translated without a full understanding of the original context (ie.- bad/incomplete exegesis) and really can’t be properly applied or understood without making the same errors as those made by “scholars from 2,000 years in the future.”
My experience is that a vast majority of church-attending folks (and a large number of pastors/clergy) don’t understand the process of exegesis/hermeneutics and read the text of the Bible fairly literally. They then attempt to apply a translated text which may contain error(s) introduced by the translators to their own lives. This lack of understanding yields all kinds of wild speculation and misapplication.
A classmate once said “Make sure you don’t exit-Jesus from your exegesis.” While the statement was funny/clever, it’s completely wrong. Exegesis is taking contextually-informed meaning *out* of a text. What he was suggesting was putting meaning *into* a text, which is eisegesis.
> Christ accepts people regardless of status, sexuality, gender,
> income, hair colour, number of zits… there’s simply no
> discrimination at all.
I fully agree that the text of the Bible supports this statement. It’s always seemed to be a primary point in the Biblical story.
The real question is: if Jesus did this, why are Christians so bent on not accepting or tolerating others? Why would they waste so much time bashing gays, let alone want to kick gay people out of church? That’s the bazillion-dollar on-topic question. :)
My friend and I were discussing this issue the other day. He was also attended Christian School and fairly regular church services (we y’know… kinda had to, going to a Christian school and all). He said “I don’t really understand why churches are being so intolerant… it wasn’t like that when I was a kid. I remember church folk saying ‘well, it doesn’t matter whether or not that person is saved… at least they’re coming here to hear the sermon. Let’s pray for them and hope that being exposed to God’s Word (via the sermons) and our example of good Christ-like living will win their soul for Jesus.’ What happened in Christianity to create this shift from acceptance to intolerance?”
Jesus and the Apostles (including Paul) did most of their preaching, ministering, and teaching “outside” the temple.
Any Christian today who keeps his “religion” only within the confines of the local church doors is not worth his salt.
The local church is for the equipping of the saints, not for evangelizing the lost. Christians are sent “out” to evangelize the lost. Why are people so shocked to see Christians taking their faith to the masses (public and private schools, media, streets, abroad, AIDS clinics, hospitals, colleges, military, abortion clinics, prisons, etc.)? That’s what they were commanded to do.
You don’t have to agree with it. The Chinese government tried to ban it, and the persecuted Church became stronger as a result.
“Intolerance” is a loaded word. I’m not sure what it means anymore. All I know is that Christians are commanded to love everyone. I can love my own teenage son very much, but I can disapprove of some of his behaviors. There may be some disagreements, arguments, consequences, even temporary separation, but in the end, I will still love him.
just my two cents @Ben:
“What exactly do you mean by “provenâ€? Of course, there’s no empirical, repeatable test you can run in which you end up with spiritual truth in a test tube. We can, however, attempt to measure things like the historical accuracy of the Bible – it stacks up very well in that department. Additionally, it is worthy of note (at least!) that there is a massive number of manuscript evidence available. Even if you don’t want to agree that the Bible is true or relevant or inspired by God or whatever, there is at least a lot of reason to believe that we know pretty much exactly what the original scriptures said.”
Pardon my cynicism, but I hear this from a lot of Christians who talk about the “truth and accuracy” of the Bible. (s a side, if you believe that what you read in the Bible is true and accurate, who really cares?)However, when asked to provide some sort of evidence, it usually is, “well said would happen. So therefore, the Bible is true and accurate about subject.”
Well, fundamentally, that’s the concept I disagree with, and that is “Christianty is correct, because it says it’s correct.” Or true, or accurate, or whatever you are trying to prove.
Others have discussed this more eloquently than I have, but IIRC the collection of books that compiles our modern Bible is the work of 10s of 100s of people, over the course of many centuries and many translations. Its bound to happen that there will be miss-interpretations due simply to translation alone (not to mention outright re-wording for the KJV version to demonize Witches), and the Bible is subject to much interpretation, especially the Old Testament. Why? I personally believe because of its Kabbalistic roots. “The Black Arts” by theological historian Richard Cavendish, whose out-moded views of Witches and other Pagans aside, writes a fascintaing tale of the Kabbalistic influence and roots of the Old (and New) Testament of the Bible. Its actually very exciting to read about the magical underpinnings of the Bible, all the while some verses make arguments against the practise of magic (Dt.18:10-11, 2 Kg.21:6, etc).
sorry, my previous msg got screwed up, last two sentences of the 2nd paragraph should have read:
“well (insert prophet here) said that (insert Bible event concerning Jesus here) would happen. So therefore, the Bible is true about (x) subject.”
Perhaps we’re all heading in the wrong direction chaps.
The Bible and the Christian message IS inclusive.
In Romans 10:13 it says “whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” No question of sexual orientation, ethnicity or any other marginalising factor, it says “Whoever”.
The Bible lays down a set of rules though. Some of those are of the “don’t do this” nature. THou shalt not murder which is not only reasonable but also desirable we’d all conclude.
There are other areas where a positive message is presented to give a pattern for living, eg, “honour your father and mother” whoich is the 1st commandment.
THe presentation of marriage as loving, caring and exclusive to the husband and wife is the pattern which God identifies in the Bible.
Why is it so important? Because it represents the relationship which God has with the church (you’ve heard that at every church wedding you’ve been to).
When we focus on the positive Christian message of exclusivity between husband and wife, that untainted love, the trust and mutual respect we are able to see what God intended. Allied to that, the heterosexual realtionship is the relationship which produces children.
THis is God’s standard.
It’s not about homosexuality being wrong, in God’s eyes adultery is in the same bracket.
It’s about God’s positive standard and about his love to help us live to that standard.
Forget religion, rather read the Bible and don’t picka single verse out of context or what you think it says, but test it, prove it and if you don’t agree with it, that’s your choice.
Not agreeing with it without reading it though is basing arguments on very shaky ground.
Straight or gay, we’re all sinners, the Bible is unequivocal but it’s also clear that God loves us and as I started, whoever calls on his name, will be saved.
I believe this is certainly an intresting post and would like to share with you this great site i surfed to that sell cheap adult sex toys.
Advantageously, the post is in reality the sweetest on this worthy topic. I harmonise together with your conclusions and will thirstily stay up for your forthcoming updates. Simply saying thanks is not going to simply be adequate, for the great readability in your writing. I’ll immediately grab your rss feed to remain abreast of any updates. Fabulous work and far success in what you are promoting enterprize!
I’m interested about Online Training and your post was helpful for me, Thanks
Sites we Like……
[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……