I settled that struggle long ago Dean. I simply refuse to maintain friendships with people who believe that homosexuality is a "sin." Difficult as that may seem, it's akin to maintaining a friendship with a klansman (or woman). Now, granted, I am no longer a Christian, but I know the New Testament teaching of Jesus quite well. I would guestimate that more than 50% of Christians feel homosexuality is a sin, yet what Jesus strongly emphasized with regard to sin was divorce. Yet I think that most Christians would not totally oppose divorce. Of course, I also believe the New Testament to be 95% fiction and myth. The Old Testament approximately 99% fiction. However, the philisophical teachings of Jesus do have some value in today's world but no more so than the teaching of Buddha, Lao Tzu, Carl Hiassen, Ghandi, or Charles Barkley.

Tim

So. Out of curiosity, Tim, do you refuse to maintain friendships with Jews who view homosexuality is sinful? Or Muslims who view it that way?

Do you believe that a faithful, orthodox Jew is the moral equivalent of a Klansman?

For that matter, do you refuse to maintain friendships with people who believe that eating pork is sinful?

Or people who believe that smoking cigarettes, dancing, or having sex outside of marriage is sinful?

Are these people also the moral equivalent of Klansmen? Why, or why not?

I'm honestly curious, because I don't see any differences here. What ever happened to "live and let live?"

There are plenty of differences. Think about it. Rejecting homosexuals is rejecting a person because they are attracted to someone of the same sex. Homosexuality is not a behavior anymore that heterosexuality is a behavior. Who you love, the person that completes your being (just like your wife), is very different than whether or not a person eats pork, smokes, or roots for the Tigers.

When I threw in the Klansman jab, I should have stated that I was referring to those people that go out of there way to criticize and ostracize homosexuals. So no, I do not view Orthodox Judaism as the moral equivalent of a klansman.
I hope you see the difference.

Although groups that reject the behaviors you mentioned simply on the basis of religious teachings have really missed the boat in a big way. I would also argue that organized religion has done more harm than good in every century.

Does it make me a hypocrite if I am intolerant of people who are intolerant?

Tim

I settled that struggle long ago Dean. I simply refuse to maintain friendships with people who believe that homosexuality is a "sin."

Thus illustrating Dean's point exactly. It's not exactly friendly to call people you disagree with "klansmen".

This whole "agree with me or I won't be friendly" mentality is puzzling to me. Are you really so insecure in your lifestyle that my disapproval of it causes you problems? Maybe that's the problem you need to address.

As for divorce: First, I fail to see the relevance; is it impossible for two things to be sinful at the same time? Second, as a child of divorce, I would agree that it's a serious problem. But it's too complicated to make into a pat subject, as there are times when divorce is a perfectly proper course of action. (Adulterous situations, for one. Abuse, for another.)

Rejecting homosexuals is rejecting a person because they are attracted to someone of the same sex.

I'm curious. Who's doing the rejecting here? According to Dean, the Christians are being nice, tolerant people, and the homosexuals are the ones doing the rejecting. And here you are, proclaiming your need to do the same thing.

When I threw in the Klansman jab, I should have stated that I was referring to those people that go out of there way to criticize and ostracize homosexuals.

OK, fair enough. So you and I can be friends?

Live and let live is really not the issue. I can let anyone do what they will, in fact, they don't need or seek out my permission to do just that. If you believe that all sex outside of marriage is a sin then homosexuality is sinful. I hate to use the old "Adam and Steve" argument, but there is really no better way to illustrate what I believe was God's perfect plan for the "way things should be." A lot of things got messed up when sin was introduced into God's perfect creation. Remember the women and childbirth part of it?

Anyway, the main thing I want to say is that the basic mission statement of "Whosoever" is correct. God doesn't discriminate. But He does expect us to give up the old ways when we become new creations in Christ. Being gay won't keep you out of Heaven, but I regard it the same way I look at drinking, gambling and other (heterosexual) forms of immoral behavior. Sin is sin in God's eyes and if you are habitually sinning, then you are in need of repentance. The problem many people have is that they are not as merciful as God. We as humans tend to have extremely high expectations of each other. Especially those who claim to be Christians. Thank the Lord, He is gracious and forgiving if we ask.

Tim, I think your assumptions about the percentages are wrong. I'm a Christian and very few of my friends believe that homosexuality is a sin--at very worst, some of them view it as distasteful but not actually wrong. And, I, of course, think that Christianity has a lot more to teach us that Charles Barkley-isms.

On the topic of homophobes, I have a tendency to treat them the same way I treat racists: ask them whether they've really thought about what they're saying. I've had some interesting conversations, although I doubt I ever changed anybody's mind.

Notably, though, my friends to the left of me politically get the same comment when they say that Republicans (like me) can't be friendly towards gays or support gay marriage or tolerate differences of opinions.

I've been told, openly at work, that I'm a "really good guy. Not like other conservative Christians at all." Bull. Most Christians aren't like Pat Robertson and most "liberals" aren't like Ted Rall.

Jeff,

Hopefully my previous post will clear things up for you. As to divorce, it is one of the unambiguous topics that Jesus addressed in his teachings.

I didn't say that I wouldn't be friendly with people who disagree with me. I will not maintain a close, intimate friendship with someone who outright rejects homosexuals because it is a "sin." Try not to read too much into what I am saying.

"Are you really so insecure in your lifestyle that my disapproval of it causes you problems? Maybe that's the problem you need to address."

You know NOTHING about my lifestyle nor about me. Other that I tend not to associate to closely with people who are intolerant of homosexuals.

There really isn't a problem...although it is still unusual to me that many intelligent people actually believe that God exists. Even funnier (or sad) is the fact that Christians actually think that the modern church is somehow, "on the right track."

Of course, I don't dislike Christians anymore than I dislike Washington Redskin fans (Me being a Dallas Cowboy's fan). I might think they are a little bit crazy and misguided, but I don't wish ill towards them. I worship the trinity of my family, my country, and my fellow citizens of earth.

Tim

Still, Christianity suffers from a fatal flaw: it is not based on truth. God is no more real than say Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, etc....That's just my belief.

And Jeff, homosexuals who hate Christians because they are Christians is just a wrong in my opinion as well. I will not surround myself with those who espouse hate as a personal philosophy.

Zombyboy,

If the Catholic church states that homosexuality is a sin, the Baptists and Methodists state in their official doctrine of faith "...homosexuality is incompatible with the teachings of Christ." And don't tell me that more fundamental protestant denominations accept homosexuality as a viable lifestyle...that accounts for nearly 85% of Christians in this country.

Tim

I have some friends who a lot of people would disapprove of. One in particular I'm thinking of uses racial epithets on occasion. Not constantly by any means, but when he feels the need to say "nigger" because, in his mind, no other word would do, he doesn't sugar-coat it. I've actually had people ask me how I could possibly be friends with such a bigoted individual. Apparently, the first time the "n-word" came out of his mouth I was supposed to express my stern disapproval, and on the second time I was supposed to break off the friendship. Anything less seems to constitute "endorsement" of his behavior.

Well, fuck that. If you expect all your friends to be perfect, you won't have any friends, because the only person who was ever (according to widely-circulated reports) perfect got nailed to a tree two thousand years ago. What makes someone a friend is that you can be yourself around them; they accept you even when you're not on your best behavior. And of course that goes both ways.

This friend is not an idiot; he knows his use of the "n-word" is offensive and that it bothers me just like it bothers everyone else, and he's working on improving that. I'm not his mother; it's not my place to nag him about it.

And some of my friends have committed even worse sins than speaking a politically-incorrect fashion. To say the least. (Dean knows who I'm talking about.)

Tim:

...someone who outright rejects homosexuals...

Maybe that's what I'm getting hung up on (now that I'm violating your injunction not to read too much into things).

I don't reject people without clear, direct reasons, most of which have to do with "due process of law". But there are a lot of behaviors I would consider sinful, and not condone, even as I associate with people who disagree.

It's a shame that the Christian message is so often confused with the particulars of sin. Sin is something we all do. I have no right to condemn you for being gay, as I have my own transgressions to account for. (I assume you're gay from your messages. If not, forgive me for, again, reading too much into your posts.)

Further, the Bible is clear that God is the one who convicts, not me. If you have an issue with God, that's between you and God. My job, assigned by God, is to love the world, and you in particular. Gayness has nothing to do with that, any more than Mary Magdalene's prostitution had anything to do with Jesus's treatment of her.

I can totally understand, though, how you wouldn't want to hang out with people who are vocally anti-gay. But I think Dean is trying to address the point with the rest of us. If we're willing to keep our moralizing to ourselves, are you willing to reciprocate?

I will not surround myself with those who espouse hate as a personal philosophy.

Amen to that, brother.

Jeff:

Well-articulated. It is possible to consider homosexual acts to be sinful (as the Bible indicates) without believing the homosexual is any more or less in need of Christ's redemption as are we all.

And, it's possible to consider the bible to be a complete crock of $hit without thinking that Christians are duped idiots that are afraid of believing otherwise. (Did your parents teach you what to believe or did they teach you how to think?)

Tim

As an adult female, I don't maintain friendships with people who think that St. Paul had the right idea re women.

They're entitled to that belief, but I don't know why in the world I'd choose to spend time with them, despite whatever other sterling qualities they may have. I don't hate them; they're just not my friends.

Same with gay people; why maintain friendships who think that their actions and orientation is sinful?

This is not an issue of Christianity or Christian religious beliefs; there are plenty of Christians who don't concern themselves with biblical teachings on homosexuality, or who don't subscribe to Paul's teachings on the role of women, or who mix polyester and cotton without a thought to burning in the hereafter.

Let me take a moment to remind people that the one thing I do insist on around here is civility.

I've been getting slack of late, but I will ask those of you taking part in this to remember: if you can't be civil, don't post.

Dean:

Do you believe that a faithful, orthodox Jew is the moral equivalent of a Klansman?

Er, would you like to take this opportunity to rephrase this thought...?

As an adult female, I don't maintain friendships with people who think that St. Paul had the right idea re women.

What idea was that?

...why maintain friendships who think that their actions and orientation is sinful?

Why not maintain friendships with people you disagree with, as long as they aren't jerks about it? What other "people of opinion" do you shun, just because they think differently than you?

It's a good thing I don't harbor any illusions about human depravity, or I'd be getting depressed right about now.

Perhaps they have grown hostile towards Christians for the same types of reasons that black people grew to hate whites: how many times can you be called nigger or fag before you get bitter? And of course that's just the most crude outward expression of the hate felt by members of those groups.

Maybe you don't understand it because you've never come out of the closet as gay or bi, and experienced all of the well meaning preaching by friends, family, and folks who don't even know you, telling you you're going to hell.

It's not the vast majority of decent people, whether white or Christian in my 2 examples, who stand out. It's the hateful bigots. They WILL stick in one's mind and tend to brand the whole group as hateful in the recipent of the hate's eyes.

Dean:
Never mind my previous question about Klansmen and Jews. I re-read your comment and I get what you were asking.

Okay, Dave, fair enough.

Then again, I know a lot of gay people. Only one I've ever met has been fired for being gay--she got kicked out of the Marine Corps.

All have stable jobs. Not one has ever been beaten up for being gay. Not one has ever been arrested for it. Most have experienced slurs, but most go through life without being constantly exposed to that. Most have stable jobs, homes they're happy in, and lots of straight friends. Some even vote Republican.

So. I ask you this: if it is incumbent upon Christians to be tolerant and not hateful and hurtful toward gay people, is it ever incumbent upon gay people not to be prejudiced toward Christians who have not attacked them, verbally or otherwise, and merely maintain their own traditional religious beliefs?

Because I can assure you that, despite what some may claim, the vast majority of Christians do hold that homosexuality is sinful. A good number don't, but they are by and large a minority.

So you're faced with a choice: do you hate most Christians? Or do you resent Christians who are jerks toward you, and otherwise try to be a decent, caring person who tolerates disagreement without anger, resentment, or stereotyping?

I mean, really: how can anyone call himself a liberal and be so vicious and nasty toward someone for simply disagreeing over this issue?

OK Dean, could you say this: "...how can you be so visious and nasty toward someone that believes your whole way of life is sinful? This is more than simply disagreeing over an issue - much more.

Tim

Orthodox Jews would of course hold that male homosexuality is sinful. Oddly enough, most would only view lesbianism with suspicion, since there's no direct prohibition of it in Torah. It's also not clear to me how sinful they would find it for non-Jews.

Reform Jews probably by and large view this as either a minor issue or a non-issue. I assume that the Conservative tradition probably splits the difference and debates the issue.

85% of the world's Christians are Catholics, and the Catholic church takes only a tolerant view toward homosexuality, prohibiting harassment of gays but still viewing it as sinful.

Most Muslims of any variation would view homosexuality as sinful. Some are more liberal and tolerant than others, however, and there's no good way to guage it since there's no centralized authority for Islam. Presumably, however, the Muslims in places like Indonesia or Morocco are a lot more tolerant than the ones in Saudi Arabia.

Well, I wouldn't consider much of the radical gay Left to be liberal myself.

I think one part of people talking past each other on this one is that you can change your religion, but it's mighty difficult to change your orientation (whether nature or nurture is nearly irrelvant. Sexual imprints are VERY stubborn).

So gays often view Christians as bigoted and stupid by choice, and the Christians view the gays as sinful and nasty by choice, when in reality both things are difficult to change.

One can no more completely ditch the thought patterns they got from being raised in their religion, than they can ditch what they find attractive.

The social support structures in our society are already frayed as it is, and being gay has been used more than once as an excuse to toss a gay family member out into the cold: they're sinful by nature!

And don't tell me that you haven't seen the veiled sneer that can cross the face of excessively judgemental religious types when someone in their presence engages in some sinful behaviour out of the blue; depending on denomination and outlook, it can be anything from lighting a cigarette, popping a beer, or a man mentioning their boyfriend.

It is usually non-verbal, good Church going folks would never SAY anything hurtful, but damn can body language say a lot. It's like a radar beacon of close-mindedness, and is usually followed by a frostier demeanor towards the 'sinner'. No matter what they thought of you before.

So no, neither side in this one can be a genuine classical liberal and engage in such hurtful behaviours. But remember, homosexuality isn't the belief system that says 'judge not lest ye be so judged', or 'whomsoever has done it unto the least of these has done it unto me'.

I think most gays would be perfectly happy with Christians if they would live up to their own self-avowed faith, and leave the 'you're sinful' pronouncements to God. A few decades of that, and I think there would be a lot less open hostility towards believers.

Well Tim: living with someone outside of marriage a way of life for a lot of people I know. Yet I don't consider Christians who consider that sinful to be raging hatemongers. Do you?

I drink, I occasionally use tobacco, and I dance. These are major parts of my life, and I will not willingly give them up. Yet, I do not consider people who consider them sinful to be raging hate-monsters either.

It strikes me that some of you are reacting harshly to the word "sin." Yet, the vast majority of Christians I know--and I've had a whole lot of education on Christian theology, even though I don't consider myself a Christian--consider "sin" to be a much less harsh and nasty word than you appear to.

Most will tell you: the root word of "sin" is a Hebrew word that essentially means you've missed the mark. You haven't done what you should be aiming for. Most also acknowledge, openly and repeatedly, that they themselves are sinners, have been sinners their whole lives, and will be sinners when they die.

Therefore, what is with this fierce reaction at the word "sin?"

Look: some Christians consider lots and lots of things I do sinful. These are things I'm not ashamed of. I don't go through life tripping out over their judgement of me. I happen to think they are wrong about some issues.

The ultimate liberal position is supposed to be to give respect and tolerance to people with differing faiths and religions. You're basically pissing on the majority of the world's faithful Christians, as well as the majority of the world's faithful Orthodox Jews and Muslims. How tolerant and respectful is that?

What is wrong with just saying, "Hey, I think you're wrong, but as long as you don't try to force your values on me, we can get along just fine?"

Dave, while I have seen the behavior you speak of, I've seen more of it from non-believers than believers. Call them "cultural Christians" if you want, because that seems to be what the majority of them are.

It has been my experience--your mileage may vary of course--that the Christians who act that way are less common than the Christians who don't. This thus strikes me, personally, as just another stereotype based on prejudice.

I've met at least a few gay men who see it the same way I do. No lesbians yet, but I know fewer lesbians.

Florence King and Camille Paglia are both lesbian writers who essentially support this position. Although both have confessed to also enjoying sex with men, so some lesbians wouldn't consider them legitimate examples.

85% of the world's Christians are Catholics

Catholicism is not a Christian denomination but a separate religion -- although (obviously) it is closely related to Christianity.

I am a Catholic. I believe in God, Jesus and the whole gang. I also believe in treating others as I would like them to treat me. I try to not cast stones at people - it's a good practice. These are things that religion has taught me. Another thing that it has taught me is that intrepretation of the Bible changes with the times. The Catholic church is not anti-gay. It is anti-sex outside of marriage and outside of the reason of procreation. Course, the church acknowledges that we are all sinners and that we should LOVE the sinner not the sin.

For this reason - I am friends with homosexuals/lesbians, people who have had abortions, wannabe alcoholics - not you Dean ;-), Democrats, people of ALL faiths. Frankly I am loved by many and return the affection to most.

I am not a hate-monger or bigot - what have you.
I find homosexuality to be a sin - sorry. I find abortion to be a sin - too bad. I find all kinds of things sinful - but I'm not a close-minded cunt about it.

I also find people who belittle faith and religion to be close-minded illiterate assholes but I don't go around telling them to fuck off - I mean we need diversity. Someone has to vote for the Democrats!

That's just who I am.

Rosemary,

I just listened to some George Carlin, and he makes a great point. The Catholic church is against homosexuality and abortion, but the people LEAST likely to ever get an abortion ARE homosexuals.

I'm not close-minded about people who have faith in a divine being, I just feel they are either misguided, mislead, or are unwilling/unable to even consider the idea that "God" might not exist. I realize that the idea of a Godless universe was troubling at first. It takes away the possibility of eventual justice. I cannot however, accept all the moral teachings in the Bible simply because the Church tells me to. And all faiths that claim to use the Bible as the foundation of their faith seem to pick and choose which teachings to emphasize and which to reject. (Remember, I was enrolled in seminary when I joined the Army after realizing in my heart that sadly, there is no God.)

Tim

Rosemary:

I am a Catholic. I believe in God, Jesus and the whole gang. I also believe in treating others as I would like them to treat me. I try to not cast stones at people - it's a good practice. These are things that religion has taught me.

Beautifully put. Substitute "Presbyterian" for "Catholic," and I'd wish I'd said it first!

Tim:

Glad to see you expressing yourself straightforwardly and in a civil tone. And I mean that sincerely. :)

So you were in seminary before you went into the Army? I didn't know that before. I followed the opposite course: went from graduate math (surrounded by people in math, physics, and engineering) into seminary.

One honest question: what makes you so all-fired sure that all of us believers are "unwilling/unable to even consider the idea that 'God' might not exist"? In my experience, some of us have indeed wrestled with that question-- whether in terms that would mean anything to you, I can't say, because I don't know which religious tradition you came out of. To me, wrestling with questions and doubts has always been integral to faith-- but then, that's a liberal Protestant speaking. Some of us, in my experience, have indeed wrestled with questions like "Could it be that there is no God?": we simply arrived at a different conclusion than you.

Which brings us back full circle to Dean's original question: Can intelligent people of good will find some way to deal with one another decently and civilly, while agreeing to disagree on certain things?

Well, Jerry, you've just stepped into an old denominational dispute.

I know you were raised in a fairly radical evangelical (was it Pentacostal?) church. One which has been petering off and dying, if I recall what you said.

Most Christian denominations view the Church of Rome as fellow Christians. The Eastern Orthodoxy (the second largest denomination worldwide) recognizes the Roman church as Christian, it's just one they have a few very old doctrinal disputes with. The Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians and Methodists also recognize the Catholics as Christians, just, again, Christians they have major doctrinal disputes with. There seems to still be some debate among Baptists, but I am 90% sure that most mainline Baptists now take the same position.

Similarly, while the Roman church used to call all the other groups heretics, they long ago came to the official position that all the other groups were their brothers in Christ. They merely take the position that the non-Catholic Christians are misguided.

Some Baptists, Pentacostals, and other assorted Bible-centered groups insist that the Church in Rome is not Christian. A few--a diminishing few--even insist that the Roman Catholic Church is the "whore of Babylon," that the Pope is the antiChrist, etc. But these are a radical and slowly fading fringe.

Worldwide, there are somewhere around 1 billion self-professed Christians. 85% of them are Catholic. Therefore, if you take the position that the Catholics are not Christians, then the biggest religions in the world are Islam, Catholicism, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Christianity would, in such a formulation, be a smallish, mostly regionalized religion, like Shintoism.

By the way, the Jehovah's Witnesses insist that they are, truly, the only Christians. So those heathens in that church you grew up in were not Christians either. ;-)

Many evangelicals don't like hearing this, but the fact is that the Roman Church was the only Christian church anyone recognized for well over 1,000 years. Then there was the split with the church in the East, then there was Luther and the Reformation, etc.

Most would argue that the evangelical movement began with John Wesley in the United Kingdom. But the fact is that the fundamentalist/evangelical offshoot of Christianity is mostly an American phenomenon.

Which means that not only would Christianity be a tiny religion, it would have most of its adherants in the United States and Canada, with only tiny minority Christian populations anywhere else in the world. ;-)

Umm, am I the only one here who finds it deeply ironic that there are a bunch of people posting here who boast, in effect, "I am so friggin' tolerant, that I will stop speaking to, ignore, shut out of my life, walk away from and generally speak poorly about anyone who is exhibits less tolerance than my uniquely personal code demands"?

"Tolerance" evidently means "accepting me because you believe exactly as I believe." I can remember back in the dark ages when America was run by a puritannical theocracy -- around 1979 or so -- when it meant not sweating our differences. I'm so glad that we've progressed to this point. So go ahead, call me a bigot, quit returning my calls and key my car to show me how tolerant you are. I can handle the fact that not everybody approves of my moral code. Can you?

I would submit that the version of tolerance advocated by Tim is not tolerance at all, but advocacy. Sorry pal, non servitur.

That said, I couldn't care less who you sleep with. I'm alright with the fact my sister is a dyke, and in fact I get along a lot better with her partner than with her. I wouldn't think of castigating her for it... But I do answer to my conscience and I still think buggery is wrong. Ought I be turned into the Bureau of Incorrect Thoughts?

I'm straight, don't hate, get over it.

"Worldwide, there are somewhere around 1 billion self-professed Christians. 85% of them are Catholic"

What is your source for this?

Most sources indicate there are about two billion Christians in the world, about one third of the total, evenly split among Catholics and Protestants. There are a billion Muslims, but some sources say 1 1/2 billion. There are something like 18 million Jews in the world -- which would make it about one-third the size of the Anglican communion.

I agree with your other points about Catholicism and Protestantism forming one essential church.

This is more than simply disagreeing over an issue - much more.

Yeah. Sure it is. Of course, we Christians need to just shut up and take our licks when we get called stuff.

...either misguided, mislead, or are unwilling/unable to even consider the idea that "God" might not exist.

Hey, but don't you dare imply that homosexuality might not be the best thing ever! That's intolerant! And we all know that Christianity is the fount of all intolerance, don't we?

However, the philisophical teachings of Jesus do have some value in today's world but no more so than the teaching of... Charles Barkley.

That's what they call "disagreeing over an issue". No insult intended.

...complete crock of $hit...

There's no chance that our faith has meaning to us similar to the companionship of another person, no way. No one would ever forego all worldly things, including the companionship you worship, to devote themselves to God.

(Did your parents teach you what to believe or did they teach you how to think?)

So you were in seminary. Good for you. Did you turn your back on all that "do unto others" stuff too? Or had they not gotten to that part when you dropped out? Must've been the next class - you know, the one with the prof who discussed the spelling of "philosophical".

Christianity suffers from a fatal flaw: it is not based on truth.

Sadly, people are still sinful creatures, and this thread proves it. No one here is seriously arguing that homosexuals are sick perverts who are just drooling to molest children. Indeed, were someone like me to make such an atrocious claim, everyone would gleefully pile on the stinkin' god-fearer and his horrible, dangerous, brain-sucking religion.

...it's akin to maintaining a friendship with a klansman...

Heck, it doesn't even look like you need to make claims like that to get piled on. Maybe I just need to learn my place, and stay on the Christian-only blogs with the rest of the retards.

...although it is still unusual to me that many intelligent people actually believe that God exists.

But hey, Christians really are stinking, horrible, dangerous, brain-sucking scourges of the earth, so it's OK to just tell the truth, right?

...organized religion has done more harm than good in every century.

I saw Hitler, Mao, and Stalin in Hell the other day. Figure I'd better check out the place, what with all the babies I'm killing in this life. They told me to say "hi!"

I'm done posting to this thread. I may be stupid, but I know a lost cause when I see it. If people want to know what I think of the Whosoever post, come on over to my blog in a little while. Then you can have some more fun in my comments calling me an idiot, if that floats your boat. Say what you will, but I'm a tolerant dude.

I don't see any blood or broken bones yet. I'm not seeing anything I'm upset about. But I remind our contestants once again that I expect a clean fight, nothing below the belt, and at the first sign of blood or broken bones I throw in the towell, okay?

Play ball!

My source is the class I took on comparative religion about four months ago, mostly the textbook and the sources we did for a major research project (it was a 400 level class, just FYI).

The figures for total Christians worldwide are rather controversial because there are several ways of counting, and not all are agreed upon. But most of the sources I recall settled on 1 to 1.5 billion. I picked the conservative end of that.

The 85% figure came from at least two different sources. I'll look it up if you like and get back to you. I seem to recall that Catholics make up something like a third of Christians in the United States and Canada, but outside of of those nations, the number of Catholics literally explodes. Their presence in much of Europe, Africa, and Latin America is simply staggering.

Notably, most of the mainline Protestants are steadily eroding in membership. Catholics, however, continue to expand, as do some of the more conservative evangelical denominations.

In retrospect I see that you are completely right about Jews. I seem to recall there are something like 6-7 million Jews in the United States, something like that many in Israel, and then scattered populations globally. 18 million sounds a leeetle bit low, but probably reasonable. We should nail it down for sure now that numbers have entered the equation.

According to the Catholic Church's own figures, there are slightly under 1 billion Catholics worldwide, representing between 1 in 6 and 1 in 7 humans worldwide.

I am having trouble locating online sources for the other churches. The first I came up with claimed a similar total for non-Catholics, however, it's using early 1980s numbers and extrapolating based on growth trends, which is hazardous.

Still, if that is close to true, then it would contradict my textbook. Which may be wrong, I grant. If so, then my earlier figures should put Catholics at 50% or so of the world Christian population, not 85%. Honestly that does sound somewhat more reasonable. I was startled by the figure when I encountered it in class, although I knew that Catholics were the largest single denomination by far.

You're not supposed to lay their and take your licks, you're supposed to turn the other cheek, remember.

The $10,000 question: How did young Tim lose his faith? Well, I was raised in the church (United Methodist), went to sunday school, memorized bible verses, studied the New Testament, no pun intended, religiously, said my prayers, helped the sick, the poor, bought into the whole "love thy neighbor" jazz...(still do), but deep down inside there was an emptiness, this feeling that it wasn't real. And believe me, I wanted to believe it so much that when I started having doubts, I went to my pastor and he advised me to explore my doubts and ask difficult questions.

I remember realizing that God doesn't exist and trying to deny it. "A good Christian boy can't reject all he's ever been taught." My sentimental attachment and hope that I was just "going through a phase" turned me on to the idea to go to seminary with the chance that things would change. Despite all the intellectual minds and brilliant philosophical writings in support of God, I knew deep inside it was still a lie, a deception, therefore, reluctantly, I left the faith.

I'm not a cynic, but rather an optimist when it comes to looking at life. I reject religion because it is the third greatest hoax perpetrated in the history of humanity.
(1. Communism 2. Multi-level Marketing)
However, just like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, there are quaint little lessons to be learned, and I suppose many people have devoted their lives and derived great happiness from serving a non-existent being.

Some people have imaginary friends that help them cope with life, and some people just use these imaginary friends to entertain and keep themselves company. I simply cannot be intellectually dishonest with myself and acknowledge the existence of something that cannot be proved. Of course, I'm still open to divine intervention, but I doubt it will happen.

The truth did set me free.

Tim

Jeff,

Just a bit of advice. It's not proper etiquette to point out typos in a post unless they significantly change the meaning of one's post. Of course, someone as tolerant as yourself probably just forgot that.

(Dean, I typed that in a very civil tone.)

Tim

Christianity suffers from a fatal flaw: it is not based on truth.

That turns out not to be the case. It IS based on truth, but Christianity itself is NOT truth.

I reject religion because it is the third greatest hoax perpetrated in the history of humanity.
(1. Communism 2. Multi-level Marketing)

Well, the problem with that statement is the Communism IS a religion. (It certainly has no basis in reality whatsoever.)

Now let's take a look at this from another direction.

When did it become a requirement that disagreeing with someone on a major issue means that you cannot like them, or associate with them? What the hell purpose does THAT serve, except to make you feel righteous?

I have a friend who is seriously bigoted. Hates fags, hates niggers, doesn't much care for wops and polacks, etc. If you think of Archie Bunker, you're pretty close to my friend.

Here's the thing though, he loves dogs and children, he volunteers at the local homeless shelter, works several nights a week at the suicide hotline and does various other community oriented volunteer activities. (He's retired, he has the time.)

This guy is not stupid. Just because he doesn't like somones race or sexual preference or ethnic background, doesn't mean he thinks they are stupid, or don't have feelings, etc.

He is unfailingly polite, to everyone, and I've never seen him angry. But behind closed doors, just him and me and a few other friends from the old days (we all used to work together), he'll say things that will make you wince, and tell jokes that even I dasn't repeat. (Deans heard some of my jokes, he'll have an idea how bad these jokes must be.)

This guy has been a loyal friend for many years. Should I shun him just because he thinks black people are inferior? Why should I do that? Would it teach him a lesson? Change his behaviour? I don't think so.

You might think I would be worried that people will think I am a bigot because I associate with him. To that I say "Oh, well." I don't much care what people think. Never have. Likely never will. I do what I think is right, say what I think should be said, and if someone takes a burn, let 'em.

Why don't y'all just get a grip. Live your own life, let the other guy live his, and shut the hell up. Eh? :)

So Dean "even though I don't consider myself a Christian", what religion were you raised in, and how did you leave it? and why?

For one who doesn't seem to consider themselves a Christian, you seem to be awfully defensive of Christians (am I trolling? ok, I'm mildly drunk, disclaimer given :-)

So, are you in denial of your guilt about leaving whatever church your folks believed in, or are you ashamed of your hidden feelings for men? (ok, that bordered on a troll, but I"ve not seen Dean put HIS background clearly on the table, like some others in this thread. But it is of course his site, and he's welcome to start difficult conversations, and not be 100% as to his bias :-)

As I've been with the same woman for a number of years, it's really neither here nor there that I'm bi, as is she, and I was raised a Mormon, and am now closest to Buddhism in practice and belief.

FYI Mormon's cribbed their interpretation of Genesis from the Masons (via Kabbalistic sources, can't remember if it started with the Gnostics or not); to wit, God intended Man to have the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but it meant nothing unless freely grasped for oneself, hence the blatant setup in the Garden. Sort of a 'are you ready for responsibility for yourself or not' test.

But my problems with over-enthusiastic religious types didn't originate with being bi, it started with good ole drinkin' and smokin'.

Being yelled at loudly on a street corner that I'm going to hell, on no more basis than my long hair, came later :-)

You'll note that I have not ever seen a gay man on the street corner yelling "IDIOT, you're children will grow up fools!!!" to everyone wearing a cross who passes by.

I mostly am in Gary's camp, EVERYONE just let it go.

First, apologies for coming into this thread at such a late stage. Second, I'm a gay man and I have a lot of Christian friends - also have a lot of ordinary straight traditional Conservative (UK political party) friends, and here it is those who they are much more likely than Christians to be unhappy about (and vocally intolerant of) gay things in general and in the abstract -- but we get along fine. They also get along fine with my partner of 12 years - they know just who he is and why we are together, and they ask each of us about the other when we are not together. I am also "out" at work and find people of all kinds (including some very conservative middle aged ladies, and there are practicing Christians of several denominations among them.) have been completely accepting, and have always made sure to invite my partner to social events. So this kind of thing is not really a problem. It is, whatever people say, clearly worked out at the individual level. Some knew I was gay before they knew me well, others vice versa. I like some of them better than others and no doubt some like me more than others, but we get along very well.

Likewise I have come across people who are quite clearly unable to "deal with" gay people in a way that makes anything more than polite civilities out of the question. I ahve also come across Christians and Conservatives who are so nasty and offensive in the way they talk about gay people and gay things that I just give them a wide berth. But we all do that with people who we don't find companionable -- and that's probably most of the people we meet. But forced by circumstances to associate more closely, I am pretty sure most of us would find a very acceptable modus viendi.

The issues, it seems to me, are two, and they are often more acutely posed in the USA, but they are strongly present in the UK too:

(1) Since the 1950s, and with growing confidence, gay people have confronted a series of strongly negative legal conditions on and social constructions of their personalities: criminality and penal sanctions; psychiatric deviancy and medical treatment; and sinfulness and anathematisation. In each case gay people have asserted an alternative view based on personal conviction (that there is nothing bad, wrong or sick about their sexual feelings), factual evidence, analytical argument, and when they have faced resistance have insisted on being heard by using democratic structures of argument and protest. In the early stages of this process, in the 1960s and 1970s, those who opposed them from the ranks of politics and law, the church, the psychiatric and medical professions, and so on, were more influential in society than gay people. However, the growing visibility of gay people and the strength of their arguments, combined with the enormous growth of public knowledge and understanding following the AIDS epidemic, moved the social centre in gay people's direction. Many of the groups that opposed gay people's arguments changed their postions, like psychiatrists.

The significance of this was that at the heart of gay people's emotional self-respect was the concept of "coming out" -- of being open and unashamed of being gay in society. This is a concept with many meanings, but for these purposes it would connote the possibility (if a gay person so chose) of doing the things he/she would do in his normal life the same way irrespective of the history of social disapproval. For me, for example, it means doing many things with my partner, talking about "us" and "we" irrespective of who I am having a conversation with, putting his name down as next of kin when I go into hospital. Whatever, being open about being gay is NOT a political protest, forcing all kinds of brazen sexual acts onto other people's attention; but it is equally not possible to be "private" about everything - (a) because it suggests it is shameful and less worthy than equivalent non-gay things; (b) that would require a definite strategy. I have become so natural about going about my very very ordinary life without worrying about whether or not people will "realise" (or already know) I am gay that I wouldn't begin to know how to censor and control myself to present a particular false image of myself in public.

The social side of this is the political demand not to be excluded or discriminated against institutionally purely because one is gay (and of course it is individuals, with their thoughts about homosexuality, that make decisions within institutions). This seems very reasonable to me. Whether or not I am open about the way homosexuality fits into all the other aspects of my life should have nothing to do with whether or not I get a job (except where, of course, it is directly relevant!) It's much like being a woman. However, many gay people have confused the insistence that people act impartially towards them in public and institutional contexts, with people's rights to think and say what they like about anyone in a private context. The confusion is heightened because acts of discrimination do continue to occur, and people are also ignorant of what gay people are like. There is need for more contact and interaction in the public sphere.

The second area of confusion has arisen because the influence of the "establishment" in the state has swung generally to a neutral position on gay people. The professions, church, law, medicine now do not generally pose a threat to gay people and to not create a public understanding that is hostile to them. However, individual sections of all of them (some senior police, religious denominations, psychiatric branches, etc etc) have not changed their views. In this is it much more like the position of women in society, where there remain many powerful individuals, leaders and structures that see women as inherently different and worthy of different treatment. Some churches will not ordain them; some senior police think they make poor officers, and fail to promote them; some employers see their families as an impediment to commitment, and so on.

Because gay people, openly gay people, are to be found in all these institutions (with greater or fewer problems) there have increasingly been demands from within to change, but this is also carried on as a campaign from without. Just as women in many churches fought to be ordained priest (and eventually were, but in many cases, where it is relevant, have not yet become bishops).... to be continued.....

so gay people within the churches are seeking the same status as heterosexual members. That the church in question should ordain open and practicing gay people, and should marry gay partners, for example. They make the arguments for this with theological, biblical and hierarchical support, and are answered in the same terms. The best exmaple of this at the moment is President Bush's church, which has very strong "liberal" and "traditional" wings as far as this issue goes.

As an atheist I am not myself very bothered about what churches do. But I never thought refusal to grant women equality revealed any mysogenous fundamentals of Christian belief, while of course some women tended to see things differently. However, gay people are more different at times and in some respects than people generally admit, and there is a real conflict going on inside many churches. It is to this that I think many Christians speak in respect to their views of relationships with gay people, and not to either the issue of public fairness, or the right to personal choice, or the mechanics of everyday companionship. Gay people from outside these churches, however, see what is going on as a continuation of the largely concluded struggles of the 1970s and 1980s, and throw in their 2-pennyworth using a quite different vocabulary and understanding to any of the intra-ecclesiastical discussants.

If this was as far as any of this went, then I would still see happy relations between gay people and non-gay Christians generally. However, the growth of the affimative state, with a huge array of tax-funded benefits; the growth of rights-based adminsitrative discrimination (whether through statute, judicial rulings and opinions, or personnel policies) has created a kultur kampf in which people are polarised and/or feel obliged to see enemies everywhere. In the US this has combined with a long political history of ethno-cultural antagonism (just look at the Whigs and Democrats in the 1830s and 1840s, or Republicans and Democrats in the 1880s and 1890s) and urban-rural conflict. In the UK it has blended in with the conservative versus radical political tradition. Gay Conservatives like me find ourselves often in the middle and under fire from both sides.

The greatest problem with the affirmative and rights-based state as far as the gay issue is concerned (quite apart from its other effects, which are many, mostly ghastly!) is that gay people feel they are entitled to be treated by the state on a basis of equality. Many would like to have the same essential civil rights as, that where there is a benefit available they should be as eligible as, and that where there is a special protection, they should be as well treated, as non-gay people who are in other respects undifferentiable. For me there is great strength in this argument, even though I would like to see most of the benefits, protections and programmes abolished completely and overnight. The battle shifts to whether the state will advance the interests of particular groups, or will ensure that members of particular groups are able to use the state to enforce equal treatment. To many people this appears to be the promotion and endorsement of homosexuality and homsexual choices and equal to and as valid as heterosexual ones. While many non-gay people don't really care much about this (unless it is posed in an inflammatory fashion by tabloid newspapers) since they recognise it wouldn't make much difference, some groups, especially some committed Christians, deem it wrong. There has therefore ensued a typical battle between interest-groups for advantage in the modern state. Take the state away and the whole issue disappears. But it does also fit in with other aspects of the kultur kampf over the family as the core institution of western life - abortion and welfare. It therefore becomes a proxy battle-ground for these as well. To take part in these conflicts both gay people and Christians adopt characterisations of one another and their demands that are often wide of the mark; they also adopt rationalisations of their views of one another that are self-serving and frequently as unrelated everyday practice as they are to realistic alternative practices (eg. "hate the sin, not the sinner" is utterly meaningless, just as accusations of targetting free speech are unfounded). The great difficulty is that Christian (and other relgious) positions are not individual views, but are time-sanctioned parts of the way people realise the most fundamental part of the personalty of all - the spiritual element. While some individuals and religious leaders find no difficulty in adjusting these beliefs and convictions to admit modern understandings of the next most important part of the fundamental personality (sexual-emotional), others find that they cannot do so. It is a part of their faith, on which their personal self-respect and social effectiveness depends. Such matters have always (and rightly) been placed beyond the interference of the state, and people have been exempt from state coercion if they have genuine religious objections. So many Christians see this as a fight for personal identity and freedom. But gay people also see their sexual selves as central to their personal identities, and view their self-respect in respect to it in much the same terms as Christians view their beliefs.

But as to getting on... Well, I have always had lots of friends who differed from me politically and in every other way. It is not at the end of the day what you think about them in some abstract scheme, but how you treat them. An that in turn demands reciprocity -- I have found the people (gay and non-gay, and in equal numbers) I don't get on with are those who cannot accept themselves and/or refuse to acknowledge things - through snobbery, prejudice, violence, philistinism, self-righteousness and timidity.

Dean, I'm just dropping this line to tell you I think this thread has given considerable support to the point of your post.

When did it become a requirement that disagreeing with someone on a major issue means that you cannot like them, or associate with them?

But Gary, the personal is political.

I posted my other thoughts on this topic on Jeff's blog.

Dean,
My compliments for doing a good job discussing and moderating a difficult discussion.

I am not going to comment much on this since I don’t think most people have an open mind on this issue. But I will correct some inaccuracies about the numbers.

85% of the world's Christians are Catholics

This is off by quite a bit. Troll King was much closer. A lot depends upon how you define Catholic, but even if all non-Protestant Christians are called Catholics, 22% of all Christians are Protestant (400 Million Protestants divided by 1.8 Billion Christians). And this number considers all 200 Million Other Christians (presumably including Mormons) as Catholic. I used Barrett's World Christian Encyclopaedia as my reference, and its numbers jive with some other references I have used in the past.

This compares to a billion followers of Islam (approximately equal to the number of Roman Catholics), 750 million Hindus, 350 million Buddhists, and 220 million atheists. For a more complete list, look at the facts yourself.

At some point, when there are less interesting things to discuss, I will be glad to discuss your comment that "Many evangelicals don't like hearing this, but the fact is that the Roman Church was the only Christian church anyone recognized for well over 1,000 years." I don’t know any educated evangelicals who are bothered by this, but I have heard many point out the Roman Catholic Church didn’t pick up most of its traditions until the 3rd Century. The Protestant perspective is that the Church made a wrong turn at that point and the Reformers were returning to the practices of the early church.

Interestingly enough, I think many of the comments here have provided ample support for your initial theory.

While I mostly grant that Admiral Quixote is right about most of what he says, I take issue with a couple of his assertions:

I don’t know any educated evangelicals who are bothered by this, but I have heard many point out the Roman Catholic Church didn’t pick up most of its traditions until the 3rd Century. The Protestant perspective is that the Church made a wrong turn at that point and the Reformers were returning to the practices of the early church.

Yes, educated evangelicals generally aren't bothered by this, but a lot of them aren't educated on the matter. This is the source of those who make the claim that Catholics are not Christians. Mind you, I've known such people, and my buddy Jerry (above) grew up in such a church, although he's now an atheist.

More importantly, though: you mention the third century, but I believe you mean the 4th century, since the first Council of Nicea was in 325 AD, under the reign of (and partly at the behest of) the Emperor Constantine. This is the era when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Most churches of the day looked to Rome's Bishop for leadership, and the Roman Catholic church does indeed base most of its traditions on what was commonplace in Rome at the time.

However, the other churches at that time generally did follow Rome's lead. As anyone who's familiar with the Orthodox wing of Christianity can tell you, Catholic and Orthodox traditions are eerily similar and virtually inseparable on 99% of theological issues. Both the Catholics and the Orthodoxy believe to this day that their traditions spring directly from the beliefs and practices as they were in the 1st century, as understood by the 12 and their followers in the aftermath of Christ's resurrection. The only note that some changes have been necessary since that time, based on the growth of the church and some 2,000 years of scriptural study and debate.

Furthermore, the Bible was compiled in 325 by the churches of that day, who by and large followed Rome's lead and, in any case, followed virtually all the same practices. The key point being, it was the people of this era who compiled the Bible, based on the understanding of the faith that was most widely understood during that era. Thus, if you suggest that somehow 4th century Christian tradition was not in keeping with the "true" 1st century version of the faith, what you're suggesting is that the Bible itself must be questionable. Since it was those 4th century Christians who argued, debated on, and finally decided which books would be accepted and which rejected for defining Christian scripture.

By the way, "Jesus Christ" is Latin for "Jesse the Anointed," and is a term straight out of 4th-century Christian tradition. ;-)

So far as I know, neither Presbyterians nor Episcopalians take the radical position that Rome is somehow caught up in 4th century traditions that are untrue to the 1st century version of the faith. The Methodists quite possibly do, and maybe the Lutherans. This mostly smacks of the beliefs common among fundamentalist evangelicals, however.

Dean,
You are correct about the century, my mistake. The sad thing is I remembered the approximate year, but stupidly said third century instead of the fourth.

The rest could make for an interesting discussion and I'll be glad to discuss it during a week with no real news. This topic is timeless and isn't going anywhere.

There are actually 2 totally separate issues involved here: 1. loving a person of the same sex, and 2. having sexual intercourse with a person of the same sex.

Christians are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves. There is no restriction in that commandment which says we should only love those who are of our same sex.

Christians are also commanded not to commit adultery, fornicate(have sex outside of marriage), or commit sodomy (homosexual sex).

Christianity clearly teaches that marriage is a covenant (contractual) joining together of one man and one woman before God.

Therefore, loving a person of the same gender is absolutely NOT a sin. But, committing sodomy IS a sin.

It is important to remember that we are not responsible for our "feelings"...we truly have little or no control over how we feel about another person. But, we do have control over our actions. A person CHOOSES to commit sodomy, adultery, or fornication.

It is also important to remember that we hold rapists, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and incestuous parents responsible for their immoral sexual behavior. We can do this because we know that human beings are quite able to control their sexual urges. As far as I know, no practicing homosexual on this planet lacks the ability to refrain from engaging in sodomy.

Only Me
>

The problem with your statement, OneWay, which I was tempted to remove but restrained myself from, is that people will feel that you've just said something unbelievably vicious about gay people. Because they will feel you are comparing their loving and tender relationships with each other with the horrible abuse that is rape or pedophilia.

I do not see how a rational or decent person can suggest that the consenting behavior between two adults is appropriately compared to these things. Yes, yes, the Christian says that all sins are bad, but it takes an odd sort of Christian to suggest that murdering someone is on the same par as stealing a piece of paper from your office supply cabinet.

I can accept that some Christians believe homosexuality is sinful. I have a harder time dealing with Christians who are so radical about it that they would suggest that it's on the same par as rape.

Thus, if you suggest that somehow 4th century Christian tradition was not in keeping with the "true" 1st century version of the faith, what you're suggesting is that the Bible itself must be questionable.

Define questionable. Much of the old testament is composed of tales that appeared in the holy writings of the Zoroastrians, a religion which predates Judaism by a few hundred years. The names, and in some cases, the locations, have been changed, but the stories remain the same.

Anyone who believes that God personally guided the hands of the scribes to choose every single word correctly has some screws loose.

Dean, I'm curious to know how your gay friends' hate for Christians manifests itself. Is it just comments made in conversation? Does it show in any particular behaviors?

In my experience, gay people's dislike of Christians is a gut-level reaction to a large organized force that puts forth the very public message that they don't like who you are. And they don't just say this, they attempt to use it as justification for denying gay people some legal rights that they ought to be entitled to and for whatever other related legislation there may be.

Straight people don't generally get that sort of institutional pressure. You'll see large groups of organized gay people, but they're intent is to gain legal rights and social acceptance for themselves, not to prevent it for others.

In my opinion, that "love the sinner hate the sin" message feels a little like CYA for something that they just find distasteful. I'm not saying that's what it is. I'm saying that's what it feels like. Christians (as a group, to distinguish from individuals and to distinguish from just the Catholic church) also give the impression that It's "less okay" to sin if you're a gay person sodomizing or fornicating than if you're a straight person sodomizing or fornicating.

If anyone can explain to me why sex for purposes other than procreation is wrong - without saying "because the Bible says so" - please do. I guess my failure to accept the "love the sinner hate the sin" argument in this case is because I can't see how "acting gay" is a sin.

So if there are so many Christian people who don't have a problem with and are even friendly toward gay people, then they either don't agree with the church where homosexuality is concerned, or they do a good job of keeping their mouths shut about the aspects of their gay friends' lives that they don't like (so the fact that they have sex). The latter still indicates a lack of acceptance of who you are as a gay person.

> why sex for purposes other than
> procreation is wrong

Speaking as a repressed white male, laboring under feminist orthodoxy, it seems to me that the biblical injunction against man lying with man made sense in the context of a nomad tribe struggling to survive in the desert. They needed babies. That's the whole story. They still need babies, if their culture is to survive.

Me, I've had my babies. All three are grown and doing well, thank you.

Now I just want cheap sex, but I'm old and fat, and that sort of puts a damper on things.

Kids, don't let this happen to you.

Thank you, Bill. Now, can anyone explain to me about the current sperm shortage and the waning population?

From my old days as a sysop, I can tell you that the quickest way to blow up a discussion is to sddress people rather than ideas.

Why is Europe dying? They've lost the will to live, the courage and determination to raise new little Europeans. It's hard work, and they've become soft, courtesy of their cushy socialist societies, protected all these years by our expensive military shield. I was tired of paying for their defense a decade ago, but who listens?

Dean,

Thanks for not removing my comment... I'm glad to have the opportunity to address your concern.

No, I am not (and would not) equate homosexual relationships with rape, incest, or pedophilia. "Rating" the "seriousness" of a sin is not a business I am in. That is God's realm and I'm happy to leave it to Him.

What I am saying, is that regardless of the human emotions involved in the act, if a person believes what the scriptures say, sodomy is a sin. Sodomy is a sexual act, as are rape, incest, and pedophilia - therefore all of those actions fall into the same "category". The "sin" and the "emotions" are 2 separate issues. We (Christians) are commanded to obey God's instructions regardless of how we "feel" about them.

It is also important to remember that "categorizing" sins into greater and lesser evils, is a human invention. God does not see sin in that light. The Bible teaches that if we commit even one sin, we are guilty of ALL sin. God sees "sin" in the singular - not the plural. Sin is sin. All sin, regardless of how we see it, separates us from God and hinders our relationship with Him.

For that reason, there is absolutely no way I would ever consider passing "judgement" on any practicing homosexual. Time here for an admission of personal guilt: As I write this, I am smoking my umpteenth cigarette of the day. Is this a sin? Yes, it certainly is. Is my sin "less" than the sin of the practicing homosexual? No, it certainly is not. We are BOTH sinning. And in God's eyes, there is no difference between us.

I share your disdain for people who fail to recognize their own failures but have no problem pointing fingers of accusation at others'. The truth is that we all sin. If that were not so, there would have been no need for God to send His Son to this earth to die for our sakes. I am in need of forgiveness for my sin just as much as any one else. And I try my best never to forget that and never to assume that I am somehow "better" in my choice of sin than any other person.

I hope that clears the air...

Thanks Again,

Only Me

Gary, in your May 24 comment you wrote that Zoroastrianism, the religion of ancient Persia, predates Judaism by a few hundred years.

Actually, it did no such thing. Zoroastrianism developed as the state religion of the Achaemenid rulers of Persia, whose dynasty was from 550-330 BCE. Judaism as essentially practiced until the rabbinical era more than a thousand years later is commonly acknowledged to have formally begun under the leadership of Moshe during the exodus of the Hebrew tribal clans from their Egyptian bondage. Some say this event took place around 1250 BC. But it was 230 years earlier, according to dates specifically cited in the Hebrew scriptures. I quote Melakhim -- the First Book of Kings -- in the Jerusalem Bible, translated precisely and directly from the original Hebrew language of 2500 year ago:

"And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Yisra'el were come out of the land of Mitzrayim, in the fourth year of Shelomo's reign over Yisra'el, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of Lord."

Maybe their theology is baseless; or maybe it isn't. Maybe their mashiach -- or any other mashichim (including yours) will never come; or maybe he will.

But the specific recounting of comparatively recent dates in the original bible, along with specific building plans for the mishkan (tabernacle) and the great temple of 480 years later, are as detailed as any modern architectural and construction blueprints.

Solomon started construction of the first permanent Jewish temple structure in 966 BCE. This means the exodus from Egypt took place in the middle of the 15th century BCE.

Either way, the worship by the Jews of a single universal and omnipotent god was all there in place some 800-1000 years before the ancient Aryan tribes ventured south onto the Iranian plateau, gods and all.

By the way, the Moslems tried but failed to totally eradicate the Zoroastrian beliefs. A small community has survived their intolerance the past 1300 years or so, in Bombay. The Hindus are more respectful of other peoples' philosphies than are the adherents of shi'a Islam.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Zoroastrianism was founded by Zarathrusta.

He was believed to have lived during 600 B.C. in Persia, which is the region covered by modern-day Iran and Iraq. Current estimates have revised this date to anywhere between 1500 B.C. and 1000 B.C., or even earlier. This makes Zoroastrianism one of the oldest monotheist world religions.

Note the comment about "current estimates" having revised the age of the religion.

http://coulomb.ecn.purdue.edu/~bulsara/ZOROASTRIAN/zoroastrian.html

Gary,

"Zoroaster" and "Zarathustra" were one and the same person, according to D Jason Cooper, in "Mithras: Mysteries and Initiation Rediscovered" (1996, Samuel Weiser Inc). Zoroaster was the man's Green name. But, as you would hopefully agree, that was the name by which his religion became known. As described by Gherardo Gnoli in "Zoroaster in History", published in the Biennial Yarshater Lecture Series by Bibliotheca Persica Press,

"Zoroaster, the prophet of ancient Iran and the founder of a religion which is still alive and practised today, was an extraordinary figure with a wide sphere of influence both in the Iranian world and in the philosophical and religious thought of the West, from Hellenism to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The historical dating of Zoroaster has been a matter of much debate and dispute. Different theses, including those in support of an early chronology, and those that place him in a remoter and nebulous past, as well as an alleged unhistoricity of Zoroaster, are here discussed in great depth while an attempt is made to demonstrate the validity of the thesis which situates him in historical times. Zoroaster is thus placed in the period between the last two decades of the seventh to the middle of the sixth century B.C., when the Medes and Persians became the protagonists in ancient history."

Before I engage in a dispute about historical facts, I first make sure I have lined up all my bibliographical ducks, just as they taught me to do in graduate school, a long time ago.

Arnold Harris

Get the hell of my site

I think there's a false dichotomy at work here: either you have to be friends or enemies with someone. This isn't true.

If any person (I don't see why this should be limited to Christians, except that Dean is particularly sensitized to anti-Christian sentiment) thinks that homosexuality is wrong -- for them -- yet is respectful and friendly to people who are gay and happy with it, I'm not necessarily going to reject them. What if, for instance, I'm very respectful and friendly about the fact that I think Christianity is a myth, a fairytale, and morally objectionable. I'd never say so to most Christians, mostly because it isn't my place to do so. Why would I walk up to a Christian and say, uninvited, something like, "You know you worship a figment of your imagination?" I would never do that.

That being said, if I knew that a person thought homosexuality was sinful, I wouldn't reject or attack them outright -- as long as they treated me and my family with respect -- but I certainly wouldn't become close friends with them. I wouldn't cultivate intimacy with them. I probably wouldn't invite them for dinner. But if I found them bleeding on the street or out of gas, I would certainly help them.

I want to be friends with people who value and respect me as a whole person. Minor disagreements on issues can be navigated in close friendships, but homosexuality is not a minor disagreement. It isn't eating pork or gambling.

Let's say, Dean, that I was having dinner at your house, and I said, "Dean, I think that your heterosexual marriage is sinful, and your child illegitimate, and I feel sorry for the two of you and your lifestyle choices, and I pity your son, and I pray for you -- but I respect you as a person." Now, even if I didn't completely disrupt dinner, and even if you and your wife and your children could get past that kind of statement and not let it ruin our friendship (hypothetical here, remember), would you still want to be close friends with me, after I had so clearly voice my disapproval of your family -- one of the pillars of your life?

I think that if any person respectfully says, "Homosexuality isn't for me and I disagree with it on personal and moral grounds," no homosexual should attack them outright. But that doesn't mean we have to embrace them and seek friendships with them. It doesn't mean we have to invite them in for tea. We have more pressing matters at hand than befriending people who cannot see the beauty and rightness of our families.

I'm particularly sensitized to most forms of religious bigotry. It's all of the same stripe to me--since it is religious intolerance, not religion itself, that leads to so much suffering and strife and conflict in the world. At least, in my view--and I don't think, to date, atheists have proven that they're any better in that regard.

Now, as for being told that my family life was sinful: no, I just wouldn't have the reaction you would, John. Maybe it's because I'm not in the kind of relationship that's been so frequently attacked by others. On the other hand, the training I got from the Presbyterian church, the Catholic church, and yes, even the fundamentalist evangelicals, would also contribute: to the serious and sincere Christian, all people are sinners. All. No exceptions. Everyone's a sinner, every, every, every single person, even the Pope to the most ardent Catholic is a sinner.

I understand that most Christians really do believe that.

Sinning literally translates from a Hebrew word that means "to miss the mark," like shooting an arrow and missing your target.

"Sin" as a word doesn't carry the emotional sting for me that it does for many people, and it's because I've known too many Christians of too many variations--including some pretty conservative ones--who have exactly that attitude. Not my place to judge, not my place to condemn you or hate you, I am no better than you, but this is the mark we believe we're all supposed to be shooting for. You can accept or reject that message freely.

My choice to sing, to dance, to smoke, to drink booze, to have sex outside of marriage, all of these are sins according to some Christians. So what? I don't hate them for thinking me a sinner--at least not the sincere ones who recognize themselves as sinners no better.

I think a part of the problem comes in with a certain angry, nasty type of Christian who thinks the sins of others are more important than his own. Or feels it's his place to condemn others, call them names, throw them in jail, whatever, to inflict "brotherly love" at the point of a gun. But, I do point out, this is something you find among the irreligious and among most of the other world religions--ask Sid Sharma sometime how people in his Hindu culture in India treated gays, just for example. Nor was atheist Stalin's Russia or atheist Mao's China particularly kind to the pink triangle set. Let's not even talk about what they do to them in Cuba.

To me the real liberalism comes in simply asking people to accept each other's differences, as long as there is no threat of direct physical harm involved. I've got Christian friends who think I'm a pretty bad sinner in a lot of ways. Back when I was living with my old girlfriend outside of marriage, of course they said that was totally sinful--and still invited me to their homes for dinner, to bible study with them if I wanted, etc.

I sense sometimes, John, that what you got was traumatized by some asshole Christians and got majorly angry about that, and are still carrying that around with you. Not that you don't have a right to feel the way you do, but I do think it's counterproductive.

One of the most effective gay rights spokesmen I ever saw gave a speech before an audience where he self-identified as gay, identified all the Bible verses that are interpreted to condemn homosexuality, said he understood why people interpreted those verses that way, and wasn't angry about it. He said he didn't even want to debate it with them, but, all he and his friends really wanted was to be left alone unmolested to live their lives like any other citizen. Hold jobs, contribute to the community, be unharassed and unmolested. He wasn't angry at their religious views, he accepted them, but asked for the basic respect of being allowed to live his life and make his choices so long as he wasn't hurting anyone.

Maybe I make it sound like he was simpering and apologetic, but he was not. He was the exact opposite. He was powerful, forceful, courageous and dynamic--and won over a lot of fairly conservative and hostile audience members, some of whom were willing to shake his hand afterward and tell him he'd made them think.

This, to me, is far more effective than being furious that someone thinks some aspect of your life is sinful. Because as I said--you can't do anything without someone somewhere thinking something your'e doing is sinful. Live and let live, that's what I say.

WHILE VISITING ISRAEL COME OVER TO ME!!!A TALL DARK AND HANDSOME CATHOLIC BOTTOM GUY IS READY TO SERVICE YOU!!!!LET'S HAVE SOME FUN AS WELL!!!
PICS ON REQUEST!!!MEET YOU SOON IN THE HOLY LAND!

Here is a website for Gay Christians that includes "A Letter to Christians who don't like us"
You should have your disapproving Christians check this out because it confronts them with the love of Jesus which is NOT judgemental to anyone.
www.epistle.us