Planetfurry BBS

[Aslaug]

My goodness ... I think that is quite possible the most condescending and patronizing post I've seen here in over a year, if not ever.

Nonetheless, to avoid being the pot calling the kettle black, I let my emotions run off with me too in my previous post.

However, lots of the things you mention in regards to Sigurd were things I posted, Howellfan. Be that as it may, I find some of the things you write absolutely reprehensible. I can't think of a milder term for it than that.

So let me put it in as delicate terms as I possibly can.

I could not possibly care less if evangelicals "KNOW" their book is true and that accordingly, they should treat homosexuals as dirt. I couldn't care less if they think that accepting homosexuality is a certain way to national self-destruction.

Let me put it this way: I KNOW my faith is right. Just as much as they know theirs is. And in my faith, we all answer to the gods not based on some antiquated set of religious laws but based on whether we were good people in life, who did good for other human beings and who tried their best to be kind and helpful while still standing up for what is right and not letting people walk all over us.

My Gods have better things to do than playing micromanagers of everyone's lives. They have a universe to run. Did I live well while I lived? That's a responsibility placed in MY hands alone.

I KNOW these things to be just as true as evangelicals KNOW their bible to be factual.

But the opinions spread by evangelicals about homosexuality are nothing short of inhumane and hiding it behind a veneer of faith, however sincere, does not make it ANY more right or ANY more legitimate. Faith is not and MUST NEVER BE beyond reproach or beyond criticism, and if faith means that such vile opinions are spread and propagated, then I will do my damnedest to make sure that those responsible are ridiculed and scorned.

Why?

Because that is PRECISELY what they have in store for me if the tables were turned. That is PRECISELY what they had in store for people like me for hundreds and hundreds of years when the tables WERE turned. And now that they have to face it themselves, they whine and mope about how grossly unfair it is.

Welcome to OUR world!

But what I'm talking about is not a witch-hunt. I will not be the one to start, but I will answer anything I consider an attack on my person because of my sexuality with as much force as I deem necessary. And when I say force, I mean intellectual force. I do not wish to go where the Church did for centuries where people were burned for being gay or lesbian. Because as opposed to those who did that, I am a civilized human being.

The evangelicals cannot claim any kind of moral high ground in this case, although they consistently try to and that is one of the reasons why they are looked upon the way they are nowadays. They refuse to even face up to the evils and wrongs they have committed, let alone change their colours. So when the world around them changes, they cannot in good faith and conscience expect that people around them will still conform to THEIR wishes and THEIR morality. The rest of us moved on to more modern times where that kind of thing is both unwanted and unneeded.

They can keep their faith. But I don't have to listen to it or accept it or sit quietly by and just go "oh well, it's their right to think I'm the scum of the earth, and that I'm responsible for bringing about the downfall of civilization". In a world with freedom of religion, they are allowed to feel as they do, but in the same world, I am free to believe something else, and when they exercize freedom of speech to pull a Westboro on me, I reserve the right to wave my rainbow flag in their faces, be PROUD of who I am and call them what they are.

Intollerant and mean.

[Benleopard]

No Offense Howellfan, but isn't it written in our Constitution that we are a nation of such diverse voices. And that we have 'Separation of church and state' in fear that this country will become some one of a arrogant holly land of one faith. True, our founding fathers were christian but they did not use their faith as any means to dictate the policies of the country. *Shakes head* Somewhere down the line, that line became blurred and religious doctrine started becoming policies. Good example would be our presidential election campaign's, shake paw, kiss babies, give speaches and say 'God bless us'.

I must say that we were founded so the corruption of churches would not influence our government like in the old world (no offence to those in the EU). Sure we may use 'In God', 'Under God' in key phrases but thats all they are, just phrases. I think to what I am getting at is that all religious affiliations, churches, ect. should stay away from influencing any governmental body and it is my belief that if any such action by any religion in this country influence the any representative should be punished by having the tax free status revoked with a penalty of paying 'X' amount of years of back taxes; but also that the representative him/herself would be bared from public office for the rest of their lives. The axe swings both ways on this issue and to better ourselves as a whole in this country, we must separate the affairs of state from the affairs of any religion.

'Asbsolute power corrupts absolutely'

I am sorry, but I must feel that I am trying to end this friendly chat without malice or ill intentions to others since I feel that things are slowly being taken out of context and wording miss read in their original meaning.

[Sigurd Volsung]

One thing you don't to know Howellfan is that the phrase "In god we trust" was not added to coins until the Civil War when the confederacy put it on their money. The North didn't want their soldiers to feel that they weren't loved by god so we put it on ours. "In god we trust" was added to our paper money during the cold war to differentiate between us and "those godless commies", that was the same time we added the line "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. Go way back in the history of Planetfurry I started a thread on whether or not we should take Under God back out of the pledge allegiance it was Joan's eloquent answer that got me to start talking to her, and I now consider her a good friend.

There have been churches who have lost their Tax Free status, and there should be many more to lose that status for the same reasons.

[Styx]

The Catholic Church for one they interfere with government no end.

[Aslaug]

To be honest, Sig ... I don't actually want the issue of equal rights for homosexuals to bring down the Christian Churches, nor do I think that will be the case because as can be seen by a great number of very decent and kind people on this forum, there are many, many christians out there who support equal rights for homosexuals and who do not judge or look down upon people of a different sexuality.

I believe they are a steadily growing faction of Christians and that they will eventually drown out the fundamentalists almost completely. The remainders will form into Westboro-like churches where their hate can be brought to the fore and where the rest of us can either safely ignore them or at least contain them.

The very idea that Christianity gives license to target homosexuals is hypocritical. Because the Bible also strictly forbids people from wearing two different kinds of cloth at the same time, eat prawn or other shellfish, and woe betide a farmer who plants two different crops in the same field over two consecutive seasons.

Bring out the rocks everyone, it's stonin' time!

No one on the evangelical fringes pays any heed to THOSE divine bans, however. Let's have a nice prawn salad while wearing leather-shoes, silk shirts, lace undergarmets for the women and cotton pants or skirts.

The bible is not an invitation to hate. We have a saying in Denmark, when someone gets something they read UTTERLY backwards, that they "read that like the devil reads the bible."

I daresay a lot of evangelicals do that very thing. Not all of them ... but a lot.

[Concolor]

Once again, a MOST interesting exchange of ideas. As has been said here before, I am gratified that a discussion of such a volatile topic does not devolve into a flame war.

Okay ... Point: I'm a Christian, and consider myself evangelical. All of you will take from that word what you put into it, but for me it means that I realize there isn't anything I can do that is "good enough" to merit a place in Paradise in the afterlife. I depend utterly on the sacrifice that Christ made for me, and look to God for guidance through prayer and the leading of the Holy Spirit. I will be more than happy to explain the how and why of my beliefs to anyone who wants to know. But ...

... and here is where I depart from much of the mainstream ...

... BUT they are MY beliefs. They are not necessarily yours. They will not necessarily fit you. It would be the height of hubris to assume that your personal relationship with your {visualization of the deity / Supreme Being / First Cause / Loving Father / Mighty Ones / Wonderful Counselor} is flawed because it does not find complete accord with mine. If you are comfortable with your faith (or lack thereof) it is not my place to make you uncomfortable. If you are seeking, I will do what I can to guide, though that may be little enough. But I have friends ... GOOD friends ... of at least four major worldviews and better than a dozen "denominations" who deserve better than my interference where it isn't wanted.

I am familiar with the Threefold Law and the Rede, and to a lesser extent with some of the other pagans traditions. I have studied in some depth several of the non-mainstream Christian and near-Christian traditions, and have come to a place of contentment. Sort of. My faith is in flux in some areas, and the more I learn, the more some areas are strengthened and the more others fade.

To wit: having learned over the last three years or so a GREAT deal more about what makes homosexuals tick ... and what makes someone gay or not ... I have discarded my old position that it was a self-destructive choice. People, basically, are born gay. For someone with same-sex orientation to try to live his or her life as a heterosexual is being dishonest at best, and terribly, terribly unfair both to one's self and one's partner. I have come to know many who tried their damnedest to "be straight", but eventually broke under the weight of untruth. The fallout, typically, is very ugly. Much better to accept who you are at an early age. Of course, this culture being what it is, that is easier spoken that put into practice. The young gay couple that we had living with us for almost two years exemplified both ends of that spectrum. One had been raised Christian (at least that's what his mother insisted it was ... more like christianistas than Christians) and did everything he knew how to do to deny his gayness. He finally could deny it no longer and came out at 17. And his stepfather promptly threw him out of the house. The other had been raised in Connecticut, in a town where "gay" was no big deal. Some were, some weren't, and that's just how it was. Their varied approaches to life and sexuality were quite a study.

(Incidentally, the Christian-raised kid became a Wiccan. The other was nominally atheist with slight deist leanings, but he fell into the Wiccan order of things pretty easily.)

For those who say I have turned my back on the Bible, my reply is that I interpret everything in light of Christ's forgiveness. It ain't up to me to judge. (Not that I won't shotgun your sorry butt if you break into my house and threaten my family. But you know what I mean.) I know several gay Christians, and for the most part I hope I can be half as good a Christian as they are. Additionally, going back to the original texts, and taking all the passages in context, I think you will find a MUCH more open attitude about COMMITTED SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS than a cursory study gives. Yes, the Scriptures deplore fornication. But guess what ... IT WOULDN'T BE FORNICATION IF THEY WERE ALLOWED TO MARRY!!!

(kicks soapbox back under the table)

"He has shown you, O Man, what is good: and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?"
-- Micah 6:8

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. ... You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself."
-- Mark 12:29-31

That about sums it up for me.

(Hummmm. Didn't see "hate gays" in there anywhere. Musta missed it ...)

[mwalimu]

[Howellfan]

Damnit, I wasn't trying to sound patronizing. *sigh* It's hard to talk about things dispassionately when it's people you know - and respect - on the table.

*Thinks for a moment* Again and again I'm seeing the same terms used:'inhumane', 'witch-burnings', etc. Is that what you believe I'm trying to defend? The HATRED or religious groups? The right of groups to lobby for laws targeting homosexuals for eviction from their homes, dismissal from their jobs, loss of parenting rights, removal from office or a thousand other variations on that theme? If that is what you have in mind, let me state clearly:I am NOT. Nor am I trying to advocate in favor of the kind of idiots who protest at military funerals holding signs saying 'God hates F*gs'. Such laws and behavior may be in line with Christian history(as the cultural arrogance inherited from Rome via invading semi-romanized warlords, and the racism that arose from it are in line with 'Christian' history), but they are absolutely and irreconcilably contrary to Christian principle and scriptural teaching and example(and it is Christians I keep talking about because that's what I raised as). Where is the support for it, in 'that d**ned book'? An act of GOD, meant as a warning? The Levitician law? Jesus saved a woman from stoning in accord with that very law, Given to isreal by God - a law for a people and an age. The most relevant example in the new testament is in a pair of letters from Paul to a church regarding their tolerance of one of their members' incestuous relationship with his mother. The first urges them to deal with it - not by a smear campaign or public humiliation, physical threat or abuse, or cutting off anything they have to do with the man - but by ceasing regular 'fellowship' with him as a part of the church body. The second - presumably after the man has ceased his affair - urges them to welcome him back with open arms, that their brother might not be overcome with grief and caused to stumble. Just like that, forgiven and forgotten. And even this was dealing with something INTERNAL to the church! (I hope I don't have to say explicitly that I'm not equating Homosexual behavior with incest. It's just the most relevant passage that I know of. )

ANY time a person of faith takes that faith as a license to hate(and to be perfectly consistent, that must include those who hold philosophies[such as racists] that ARE deserving of contempt, as targets of that hate), they are wrong. I repeat: I'm in no way trying to defend that hatred, nor endorse it, nor defend the codification of hatred in public policy or law, nor the advocacy of such codification. What I AM trying to defend -

*Arrrrgh;HOW can I clearly show what I'm saying and more importantly, NOT trying to say.... *

Does anyone remember a certain anti-drug add from many years ago(at least, I THINK my memory isn't playing tricks on me - I was maybe seven at the time): in the background, a teenager is walking down the railroad tracks, listening to her walkman(WAY before I-pods, kids - Google it ). Behind her a train is barreling closer, and closer, and closer. And just in front of the camera and facing it, her friend is talking as the train draws ever nearer, growing increasingly distraught, explaining why she can't intervene and finishing with something like(I THINK) 'it's her life, right?' as the train runs over her friend. The analogy was to drugs, but it's also a good representation of the 'Evangelical world'; BILLIONS march unaware into eternal darkness and death, and it's demanded of them to not evangelize, but keep it in the privacy of their homes. A nation that once largely reflected them has reminders of that history(and the adding of 'Under God' to the pledge in the 1850's was surely reflective of the culture of the day, wasn't it?)cut away a piece at a time while their country pursues(by their light)policies of self-destruction(and I refer to far more than the issue of 'Gay rights' here), and they are forbidden to do anything about it, with some advocating that every avenue by which they may act to avert disaster be blocked. The cliff draws ever nearer, and they CAN'T DO ANYTHING about it - and are implored to not even try.

Please, please:do you understand what I mean? I am not speaking of those who would act out of maliciousness or hate(at worst:ignorance, and yes, ignorance kills). For many Christians(and, I suspect, adherents of other faiths)their faith carries a social imperative, part 'n parcel and indivisible from the rest, that goes beyond the generals of simple humanitarianism. Many could not, in good conscience, be true their faith and most deeply held principles and beliefs, or even true to their love of their fellow man, without acting on that imperative. Because, you see, it's a game between God and evil, and everything is on the table. Every human soul, their country, all that a person - any person - of good conscience might care about. Everything! They're compelled to act. What I'm saying - and it is all that I am trying to say - is that they aought to have legal and political avenues that allow them to freely do so, and should not be damned simply for using them.

I know my parents - cause, y'know, I spent 18 yrs. living with them( )and visit them every Sunday. They're good people, aslaug. The couple that own the local tech shop - I mentioned them once or twice on these boards;husband's a cool guy, into alternative energy. Record promoter. Always into some new project or idea. Built me the computer I'm using now same day I brought the cash. One article described the pair as looking like they fronted for the Goo Goo dolls, if that gives you an idea of how they look( ) Very thoughtful and articulate - in a supur-caffeinated when he's not totally wiped sort of way. You never come away from an debate or discussion with him feeling embarrassed or put down in any way, even when you've just stuffed your foot in your mouth. (Not that I'm speaking from experience there...heh, heh heh...) Ideologically? Hardcore Calvanist. Socially conservative. But he's a good guy, and he's good to everyone. I will admit, however, that my father sometimes drives me crazy by acting less flexible than I know he damn well can be when he's actually sitting down and laying his positions out. Anyone relate to that?

Sig, aslaug, my parents know that I'm no longer such a believer. I know my mother, especially, aches for me to return to the faith. I've seen her in tears over it - because I'm playing games with my soul! What should I do with that pain? Simply set it aside as the needless agony of a closed and ignorant mind? I can't do that. i can't - and won't - trivialize it and all that lies behind it that way.

Social conservatism is distinct from ignorance and hatred. Good people can hold to the first, and reject the second. And the misunderstanding and fear that lead so many to believe they can't, and thus so completely cause people to talk past each other, is my greatest source of fear.

Once again, to be ABSOLUTELY clear: I'm NOT advocating or defending hatred. I'm not defending the mistreatment or hatred of Homosexuals. I in no ways advocate or defend hate. That is NOT what I'm talking about, and has nothing to do with what I mean. It was not my intent, was not what I had 'in mind', and I deeply regret that it was taken as my intent and sincerely apologize to all that I caused to feel that it was what I was advocating. Mea culpa.

(Mods, if it's being considered, please don't lock this thread before this is posted - I desperately want to clear the air about my intent. )

[Benleopard]

edit

[Teric]

[Styx]

[mwalimu]

[Alexi]

Wow,

And again, i find this community astounding me. As a Wiccan, I didn't think I'd ever agree with someone of the Evangelical faith. Concolor, I find myself in almost complete agreement with you last post.

[Howellfan]

Alexi, I think this is a common truth to any true walk of faith.

It's so funny when I hear peaple complain that Evangelicalism claims all the answers. I could laugh if the consequences weren't so tragic. The whole crucifixion to redeem the souls of men thing - how exactly did it work? There are schools of thought - substtutionary attonement, etc. - which would argue over the what, but they make no claims on the how. What's the answer to the 'problem of pain'? Read Job. Here he stands at last before God. The stage is set, the players are in place, the issue is before them, a PERFECT opportunity to answer 'why we suffer'. And we get...nothing. No answer, almost as if the point of the story is that there IS no answer we could understand this side of the grave, only a promise that one day 'all will be well, and all will be well, and all will be well', and everything wrong made right. There is a very conservative, evangelical argument to made for multicultural respect and tolerance, you know; the Bible should be for all times and peoples, not just the one of it's birth and inheritance, so some other peoples or tradition may carry a shard truth that will illuminate something in scripture that christian tradition long overlooked. The native americans and other tribal cultures, for instance, did a damn sight better job in point of practice of managing, subduing and replenishing along scriptural lines than the west for centuries - if colonists actually got to know them, and looked at their scriptures with open eyes it would(and should)have shamed them - but we were still to damned proud then. A young, brilliant civilization made cocky with it's gifts, not yet b**ch-slapped by the realities of two world wars, communism, the perversion of fascism, and the hard environmental lessons of the dust bowl years.

Personally, I can't wait to see what Chinese Christianity looks like in twenty years. Historically, the east has largely avoided the original sin of the West, was never seduced by the 'sorcerer's snare' (and when sorcery was found wanting, the mechanist's snare) of 'conquering nature', bending and breaking it to their will instead of adapting their behavior and need to natural law. And I believe they're emphasizing(at least the underground is)personal mentorship and personal literacy in the faith from the start. It'll be interesting.

[Aslaug]

Alright Howellfan, well explained. That cleared things a bit.

*takes deep breath*

Thing is, I still disagree with you very strongly on some key issues. That's fair enough I guess. We can't all agree on everything, but we can agree to disagree I suppose.

Still, let me clarify a few things as well.

Whether you actually defend the inhumane (yes, I believe the term applies) and hateful groups out there or not, they exist. I accept that you don't ... don't get me wrong here. I accept fully that this is not what you are trying to defend, but those groups are there, and they are making life absolutely miserable for many, many, many people who are the subject of their hate and their jeering. Consequently, I would like to stress that if Evangelicals who do NOT support that kind of thing want to be taken seriously or seen in a different light, they have a massive responsibility to distance themselves from those groups or they WILL be lumped into one. It just can't be avoided. It's the way the human psyche works.

I don't see that happening. I see you distancing yourself from them now, and that's admirable and good, and I've seen others do so. One of my proof-readers is a southern baptist and he's a very, very good friend. He's also very non-judgmental. As I said in my previous post, there ARE evangelicals out there who don't act like that, but they are not seen and not heard except one-on-one or in private debates.

Next, to deal with a few things you said more directly ...