"Liberal Christian" is an oxymoron!

[Sonic247]

Some of the Christians I know belong to churches that do, in fact, treat gay people and straight people the same. I wouldn't say it of them. I'd say it of the rest of them. Many of them claim not to be prejudiced against gay people, but in practice they have no problem supporting churches that institutionalize anti-gay bigotry, or enjoying, within those churches, privileges from which gay people are excluded. I wouldn't say all of them are virulently anti-gay; I would say that all of them are -- at best -- sufficiently indifferent to gay people to consider anti-gay policies something they can live with.

Well I don't know exactly what things the church's your talking about allow or don't allow but I'll say this as a general principle; If there are ten churches in your town and nine of them are corrupt it doesn't matter because of the one good one and the fact that you know about it. If you were interested in Church, which I don't really know either way. Even with Jesus himself there was one Jesus but the prophecy of many Antichrists. I'm not saying I would agree with the same church you would just that when there are different options you just have to discern the best you can.

 

[Smoke]

Well I don't know exactly what things the church's your talking about allow or don't allow but I'll say this as a general principle; If there are ten churches in your town and nine of them are corrupt it doesn't matter because of the one good one and the fact that you know about it. If you were interested in Church, which I don't really know either way.

I'm not. The issue is not whether I can find a church that treats gay people as it treats gay people. There are such churches; however, they're an insignificant minority of churches. My point is that it's a cop-out for Christians to shrug off Christian bigotry against gay people as something that belongs only to extremists like Pat Robertson. Anti-gay bigotry is practically universal among Christian churches. It's just about the only thing they can agree on. Catholics or Methodists or Presbyterians (including gay ones) may not be as crudely anti-gay as Pat Robertson (though they often are), but they all accept the marginalization of gay people.

The fact that even divorced and remarried Christians feel free to pontificate about the sinfulness of gay people is merely a symptom of the depth and breadth and near-universality of Christian bigotry -- or, at the very least, acceptance of bigotry -- against gay people.

 

[Sonic247]

So is the main complaint that they preach against homosexuality, or something else?

 

[linwood]

So is the main complaint that they preach against homosexuality, or something else?

I believe the main complaint is their hypocrisy.

They demand that this one law of their gods is followed while they happily skip through life totally breaking almost every other commandment their god ever made but never speak a word of it.

 

[Smoke]

So is the main complaint that they preach against homosexuality, or something else?

I have lots of complaints about Christianity.

The specific complaint in this instance is that Christians are hypocritical about their attitude toward gay people. They pretend that they are required by the Bible to marginalize gay people, but they freely disregard the Bible with regard to straight people. They pretend that because they are not as crudely anti-gay as Pat Robertson, they aren't bigoted against gay people at all, and yet that is manifestly untrue, as seen in their treatment of gay people.

In other words, the vast majority of Christians seem incapable of either loving their gay neighbor or admitting that incapacity, and demand to be respected for it.

 

[blackout]

Of course they want to "witness" to us. They want to conquer the world with their gospel.

However, if they believed in treating us as they would be treated, they would find the compassion to bend their rules for us as they bend them for themselves. Christianity's treatment of gay people cannot be just an act of obedience, for they have shown that obedience is of little importance when it comes to straight people. They do not, for instance, tell divorced heterosexuals that they must be celibate for the rest of their lives because it would be a sin for them to marry, but that is exactly what they'd do if they treated straight people and gay people with the same understanding and compassion. Christianity's approach to gay people is nothing less than a complete failure of compassion, and a determined refusal to love their neighbors as themselves.

Hehehe.....

"bend the rules for your neighbor, as you would bend them for yourself"

 

[Sonic247]

I have lots of complaints about Christianity.

The specific complaint in this instance is that Christians are hypocritical about their attitude toward gay people. They pretend that they are required by the Bible to marginalize gay people, but they freely disregard the Bible with regard to straight people. They pretend that because they are not as crudely anti-gay as Pat Robertson, they aren't bigoted against gay people at all, and yet that is manifestly untrue, as seen in their treatment of gay people.

In other words, the vast majority of Christians seem incapable of either loving their gay neighbor or admitting that incapacity, and demand to be respected for it.

If I remember right your somewhat familiar with the Bible. I'm guessing you read the part in Romans that outlines different sins of the gentiles including homosexual relationships and then moves on to the sins of the self-righteous essentially saying they are in the same boat. I guess everyone just has to bear there own burden. If your right and all these church's really are hypocritical than what's happening is they are trying to change you and your trying to change them. Really all you can do though is try to be as righteous as you can based on the light you have.

Edit: If that is obscure I can add references....

 

[Kathryn]

"I do think that some "liberals" are aghast at the concept that not all Christians are 700 Clubbers also."

They're not? Really?

Wait a minute. Pat says he IS the voice of "real bible-believing god-fearing Christians" and all those other "Christians" are false satanists.

Whose right here?

So what if some crazy man says he's the voice of "real bible-believing God-fearing Christians" blah blah blah?

As an intelligent Christian, I can use my powers of judgment and reasoning to determine which people I am going to listen to, or when to change the channel.

What Pat Robertson, or you, or me for that matter, says doesn't change TRUTH one iota.

 

[Kathryn]

Good point, there shouldn't even be denominations. Still there has to be divisions because of heresy. But it just seems wrong if someone asks your religion to say "baptist" when "Christian" is my spiritual identity.

I agree to an extent - though adjectives always add some spice to life!

My 22 year old son who is in the Army has been sowing his wild oats for about 8 years now. The other day he called me from Korea and told me that he had been attending church and had been checking out the different denominations. He had some questions about different practices and asked me which denomination was "best."

I told him that most mainstream Christian denominations all agree on some basic tenets of faith, and those are:

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. 2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. 3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. 4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. 5. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again. 6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. 7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. 8. I believe in the Holy Spirit, 9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, 10. the forgiveness of sins, 11. the resurrection of the body, 12. and the life everlasting. Amen.


He is familiar with the Apostle's Creed since he basically cut his teeth on it. Anyway, I said, "My opinion is - stick with a church that agrees with those basic concepts. The rest boils down to style and personality."

Churches that embrace these beliefs include:

1. Roman Catholic
2. Methodist
3. Anglican
4. Episcopalian
5. Lutheran
6. Presbyterian
7. Unity of the Brethren
8. Most Chinese Protestant churches
9. Most Baptist churches
10. Western Orthodox Churches
11. Congregationalists
12. Most Arians
13. Most Unitarians

I am very excited to see my son maturing and exploring matters of faith! He called the other day after reading Job 38 (what an amazing chapter!) and said, "Hey, Mom - CONTACT, CONTACT!" talking about feeling the presence of God as he read that beautiful, beautiful chapter.

 

[Magic Man]

However, if they believed in treating us as they would be treated, they would find the compassion to bend their rules for us as they bend them for themselves.

I just wanted to repost this. This says it perfectly. When it suits them (meaning when it makes their lives easier), it's OK to bend the rules, but when it's "the other" and it doesn't negatively affect their own lives, it's not OK.

 

[ChristineES]

I do have to agree with Smoke on this: The Church does seem to ignore some things that are called sin, and totally go after things that are called sin, too. And of course the rules are bent in favor of majority. Hypocritical, if you ask me.

 

[Smoke]

Hehehe.....

"bend the rules for your neighbor, as you would bend them for yourself"

Or follow the rules yourself, as you demand that your neighbor follow them.

 

[Smoke]

If your right and all these church's really are hypocritical than what's happening is they are trying to change you and your trying to change them.

I'm not trying to change them; I'm explaining my contempt for their treatment of gay people.

Really all you can do though is try to be as righteous as you can based on the light you have.

It seems to me that a person or a group that brings the full weight of the Bible down on gay people, while freely disregarding the Bible in regard to straight people, is not trying very hard at all.

 

[Smoke]

Would you say that those moderate Christians who sympathize with gay people yet still financially and philosophically support churches that do actively seek to withhold the rights of gays and rank them something less than a full citizen in our society are a part of the problem?

Do those moderates get a off the hook when the blame for marginalizing people for their sexuality gets passed around?

If so...why?

Not my hook.

I understand, of course, that such people don't support their churches with the intent of marginalizing others, but that is the effect of their support.

To give an extreme example: If you personally believe in full equality for black people, but you belong to the Klan because your whole family belongs to the Klan, or because you like the sense of being part of a movement, or because you enjoy the fellowship or the barbecue, are you still responsible for supporting the racist goals of the Klan? I think you are.

 

[Storm]

Would you say that those moderate Christians who sympathize with gay people yet still financially and philosophically support churches that do actively seek to withhold the rights of gays and rank them something less than a full citizen in our society are a part of the problem?

Do those moderates get a off the hook when the blame for marginalizing people for their sexuality gets passed around?

If so...why?

Not my hook.

I understand, of course, that such people don't support their churches with the intent of marginalizing others, but that is the effect of their support.

To give an extreme example: If you personally believe in full equality for black people, but you belong to the Klan because your whole family belongs to the Klan, or because you like the sense of being part of a movement, or because you enjoy the fellowship or the barbecue, are you still responsible for supporting the racist goals of the Klan? I think you are.

I'm still wrapping my head around the fact that some folks consider me a religious extremist, though it does resolve this particular conflict nicely.

Smoke, would you also consider Christian welcoming congregations extremists, or do you hold them responsible for the discrimination of Christianity as a whole, as well? That sounds rather like "have you stopped beating your wife," for which I apologize, but I can't think of a better way to phrase the question. :sorry1:

 

[Smoke]

Smoke, would you also consider Christian welcoming congregations extremists, or do you hold them responsible for the discrimination of Christianity as a whole, as well?

I don't consider even the members of viciously anti-gay churches like the Roman Catholic Church or the LDS Church to be (necessarily) anti-gay extremists personally, so I certainly wouldn't say that members of welcoming congregations are.

However, I can't help noting that their welcome is generally limited and circumscribed by the policies of their denominations. To say to gay people, "We welcome you to our church, and we accept you as gay people, though of course we can't bless your marriage and you are ineligible to be ordained," may be a step in the right direction, but it's still an indication of what Lilithu calls systemic bias.

It reminds me of a story my friend told me about a party he was invited to. There was a barrier set up so that the guests were clearly divided into two groups. The hosts and the group they were with were enjoying a buffet and cocktails; the people on the other side of the barrier, but in plain view of the first group, were treated to bowls of potato chips, beer, and what my friend described as "a tub of ice with a big old bottle of merlot stuck right in the middle of it." The second-class guests arrived with kindly feelings toward their hosts, but they left with feelings that were quite a bit less kindly. Do you blame them?

 

[Storm]

I don't consider even the members of viciously anti-gay churches like the Roman Catholic Church or the LDS Church to be (necessarily) anti-gay extremists personally, so I certainly wouldn't say that members of welcoming congregations are.

However, I can't help noting that their welcome is generally limited and circumscribed by the policies of their denominations. To say to gay people, "We welcome you to our church, and we accept you as gay people, though of course we can't bless your marriage and you are ineligible to be ordained," may be a step in the right direction, but it's still an indication of what Lilithu calls systemic bias.

It reminds me of a story my friend told me about a party he was invited to. There was a barrier set up so that the guests were clearly divided into two groups. The hosts and the group they were with were enjoying a buffet and cocktails; the people on the other side of the barrier, but in plain view of the first group, were treated to bowls of potato chips, beer, and what my friend described as "a tub of ice with a big old bottle of merlot stuck right in the middle of it." The second-class guests arrived with kindly feelings toward their hosts, but they left with feelings that were quite a bit less kindly. Do you blame them?

Not at all.

However, I have a slightly different perspective than you seem to. I see welcoming congregations as fighting the good fight. It doesn't matter so much that they haven't won (yet), I admire and appreciate what they're doing.

 

[Smoke]

However, I have a slightly different perspective than you seem to. I see welcoming congregations as fighting the good fight. It doesn't matter so much that they haven't won (yet), I admire and appreciate what they're doing.

I understand that they have good intentions, but I can't imagine why anybody would be interested in their left-handed welcome. Nobody is forcing these well-intentioned people to belong to churches with anti-gay policies, so I think it's reasonable to conclude that they consider those anti-gay policies acceptable. They do, after all, accept them -- even if they hope they'll be changed someday.

 

[Storm]

I guess I just have more sympathy/ charity towards those who feel compelled by a given religious tradition, despite its flaws. (That's neither boasting nor criticism, I respect your view.)

 

[Smoke]

I guess I just have more sympathy/ charity towards those who feel compelled by a given religious tradition, despit its flaws.

Oh, I can sympathize. Remember, for most of my adult life I belonged to a church that doesn't even ordain straight women, much less gay people, and the conflict between my convictions and my religion was very troubling. It took me a long time to decide that I was actually going to have to follow my convictions.