Christians showing love at Gay Pride

[Hobbs]

I view smileys experience in this way, woman is beaten by her husband, she leaves, she goes back to him, he beats her again, she leaves again. Now at this point, were she to go back to him again most people would be saying she's an idiot, yet when smiley refuses to he's close minded and has no justification for his trepidation?

In post #25, I replied o Ghel who had posed the same analogy and pointed out its fallacy. I'd appreciate it if you read prior posts before repeating something. I won't repeat my argument as it is there for you to read...again. He is close-minded. That is not in dispute.

Again, you're lumping in people who've done nothing wrong with people that have done things wrong. It is this flawed logic that I do not support Smiley.

[Nyoibo]

oh but you see, obviously Christ's love is different than a husband's love

It is, Christs love was unconditional, Christians love however......

[Kaylyn]

And I think that's the key sticking point. From what I've gathered by lurking when Smiley posts, he doesn't have a problem with Jesus Christ. I feel like he still wants to practice his faith, that Mormonism is very close to his heart. It's the other practitioners of that faith that have mistreated him that have left a bitter taste in his mouth. I'm not saying it's fair that he lumps all Christians in with the same Christians he's had personal experience with, but I can understand why he does. If you get bitten by 90% of the dogs you try to play with, then you're not going to be trying to play with any more dogs, even if they sit there and wag their tails at you, even if every other dog out there besides the ones you've tried to play with are perfectly nice.

Though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about you, Smiley! I'm just going on what I think I remember reading and what my gut instinct tells me here.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Well, smiley's experience is more like getting bitten by 90% of the rottweilers he tried to play with in the 'Utah nasty rottweiler reserve'. Now this might be a perfectly valid reason to dislike those nasty rottweilers but not the perfectly amenable Corgie in the window of the pet shop.

[Ghel]

I've seen plenty of women who have been married three or four times, where the first guy's abusive, so she leaves him and hooks up with a different abusive guy. I don't want to see gays doing the same thing with churches. All Christian churches, by definition, base at least a portion of their beliefs on the Bible. And even if it's a liberal church that accepts homosexuality (and isn't just lying to get the person in the door), there's likely to be some members of the church who adhere more strictly to the teachings of the Bible and will discriminate against the homosexual members of the church. In this way, it's very much like a battered spouse leaving one abusive relationship and ending up in another abusive relationship.

[Hobbs]

Ghel, again you're misappropriating blame for an individual's actions upon the entirety of the whole. Of course people will think independently in a population of a church, or a government, or an ethnic group. That's just nature. That said, you're putting it as if the church is, by its own doing, responsible for an individuals actions. Short of a priest killing a bigot, there is no way for a church (any church) to stop the way a person thinks.

You have this idea, from what I've gathered, that no matter what, a church can only be wrong. Even if a church is good, you will find some way to make it wrong, and to make yourself right. Such thinking brings about a self-fulfilling aura of righteousness; turning away all counter arguments, for good or ill.

[Kaylyn]

Well, smiley's experience is more like getting bitten by 90% of the rottweilers he tried to play with in the 'Utah nasty rottweiler reserve'. Now this might be a perfectly valid reason to dislike those nasty rottweilers but not the perfectly amenable Corgie in the window of the pet shop.

First of all, I'll save the debate on "all rottweilers are nasty" for another day, as I feel very strongly about the topic, being very close to dog breeders. For now, let's simply continue with that analogy, since I know what you intended by it.

If his only experience is with the "vicious rottweilers" of the Mormon Church, then that's the only type of dog he knows, and how is he to know that that corgi, representing for example the Unitarian church (simply an example since I know they're open-minded about homosexuality), which is just another dog to him, isn't going to treat him the same way? At this point he's too terrified of dogs to even attempt to pet another one. In his mind all he sees on that corgi is its teeth bared in attack. He may even want to pet it, because it looks so sweet and adorable, but he just knows that he's going to regret it, so he doesn't bother.

Not saying it's fair, as I know many individual Christians who are perfectly fine with homosexuality and would accept him like anyone else. I know if I were to find my way back to Christianity, I wouldn't suddenly stop talking to my gay best friend, because my feelings on the matter won't change. Just saying I understand where he's coming from.

[HYHYBT]

I've seen plenty of women who have been married three or four times, where the first guy's abusive, so she leaves him and hooks up with a different abusive guy. I don't want to see gays doing the same thing with churches. All Christian churches, by definition, base at least a portion of their beliefs on the Bible. And even if it's a liberal church that accepts homosexuality (and isn't just lying to get the person in the door), there's likely to be some members of the church who adhere more strictly to the teachings of the Bible and will discriminate against the homosexual members of the church. In this way, it's very much like a battered spouse leaving one abusive relationship and ending up in another abusive relationship.

The trouble is, that reflects a complete misunderstanding of what church *is* (or at least, what it's supposed to be, and a large part of what it actually is.) Which is quite understandable, coming from an atheist.... but what you're saying is too close to "you should quit believing in Christ because some of the other people who also believe in him aren't nice" when the one has nothing, really, to do with the other.

[tropicsgoddess]

Wonderful.

A good example of what being "Christian" should really be.

My sentiments exactly. Love, compassion and charity are what Christianity are about. Sadly it's those hateful and bigoted assholes like WBC and all the crazy fundies that give Christians a bad name.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

First of all, I'll save the debate on "all rottweilers are nasty" for another day, as I feel very strongly about the topic, being very close to dog breeders. For now, let's simply continue with that analogy, since I know what you intended by it.

If his only experience is with the "vicious rottweilers" of the Mormon Church, then that's the only type of dog he knows, and how is he to know that that corgi, representing for example the Unitarian church (simply an example since I know they're open-minded about homosexuality), which is just another dog to him, isn't going to treat him the same way? At this point he's too terrified of dogs to even attempt to pet another one. In his mind all he sees on that corgi is its teeth bared in attack. He may even want to pet it, because it looks so sweet and adorable, but he just knows that he's going to regret it, so he doesn't bother.

Not saying it's fair, as I know many individual Christians who are perfectly fine with homosexuality and would accept him like anyone else. I know if I were to find my way back to Christianity, I wouldn't suddenly stop talking to my gay best friend, because my feelings on the matter won't change. Just saying I understand where he's coming from.

Well I'd like to point out that the nasty rottweilers in my analogy were specifically defines as such presumably because they were gathered in that specific place because they were nasty rottweilers keyword: nasty. The point being that it's an area with a high concentration of a very specific type of 'thing' which, for whatever reason, has a high concentration of bad eggs (in my analogy it's more of a involuntary confinement and in smiley's RL it's more of a birds of a fether type deal)

Now, it would take a moron to not realize that while a Corgi is also a dog, it's about as different a kind of dog as it's possible to get as well as the fact that the common thread between the rottweilers wasn't just 'dog' it was also 'rottweiler'. By that standard it seems perfectly acceptable to me at least that one would naturally be open to the idea of this quite different 'thing' being, different.

Also, I know that Smiley knows that not all Christians are alike and that he should give those that extend an olive branch a chance. Because he's an intelligent human fucking being living with more access to information than at any point in human history. I can understand what might motivate his emotions, to a point. But even if Rottweiler and Corgi still don't deliniate enough emotionally to out-impact 'dog' he should at least recognize his intellectual knowledge and fucking act on it or shut up. JMHO.

[smileyeagle1021]

Also, I know that Smiley knows that not all Christians are alike and that he should give those that extend an olive branch a chance. .

Have I not said just as much that not all Christians are alike?
However, the last time I accepted an extended olive branch it ended horribly. To use your phrasing, an intelligent fucking human being doesn't knowingly put himself into situations that he knows have gone horribly wrong in the past. In fact, we have a word for trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome... Insanity.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Have I not said just as much that not all Christians are alike?
However, the last time I accepted an extended olive branch it ended horribly. To use your phrasing, an intelligent fucking human being doesn't knowingly put himself into situations that he knows have gone horribly wrong in the past. In fact, we have a word for trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome... Insanity.

Which would be true if you accepted it from the same people as before, my guess is that this is not the case. And you saying it is kinda what clued me into that knowledge, what surprises me is not your reluctance to act on it instead of your emotions, it's your insistence.

Looking into the offering of open arms is not, the same thing as a similar offer from a different group. The fact that the group is different makes any acceptanse similar, not the same.

[Kaylyn]

Now, it would take a moron to not realize that while a Corgi is also a dog, it's about as different a kind of dog as it's possible to get as well as the fact that the common thread between the rottweilers wasn't just 'dog' it was also 'rottweiler'. By that standard it seems perfectly acceptable to me at least that one would naturally be open to the idea of this quite different 'thing' being, different.

Heh, sorry for the way my comment came across...I realize now it reads a LOT more snippy than I meant it!

FWIW, I was attacked by a large dog when I was a child. Hell, it could have been a rottweiler, for all I know. Big dog. For the longest time, I was absolutely terrified of all dogs, even the cute fluffy ones, because of that one experience, simply because they were dogs. I'm not terribly fond of dogs now, but I'm not paralyzed with fear when in close proximity to one anymore, and I've even been known to play wrestle with my friend's German Shepherd from time to time.

Just one attack as a young child, and it took me until about high school to get over it. I try to imagine repeated attacks, and I could see myself developing a severe dog-phobia for the rest of my life. So I totally get where he's coming from.

[Ghel]

The trouble is, that reflects a complete misunderstanding of what church *is* (or at least, what it's supposed to be, and a large part of what it actually is.) Which is quite understandable, coming from an atheist.... but what you're saying is too close to "you should quit believing in Christ because some of the other people who also believe in him aren't nice" when the one has nothing, really, to do with the other.

Just for a little bit of background, I was raised Catholic, and I was horribly disappointed when I realized I had been unwittingly lied to all of my childhood.

My statements on this thread have addressed two separate, but related, points. The first, which you're referencing, is that Christian churches tend to be hypocritical and bigoted, depending on which Bible verses they accept and which they ignore. The second is that there's no good reason to believe that any Christians are correct in their beliefs that a God exists.

It is this second point that I hope all people eventually realize. If the churches' attitude toward homosexuality gets Christian gays to investigate the churches' claims and come to the realization that they don't make sense and/or aren't supported by what we know of reality, and that leads them to abandon their belief in a god, then I consider that a good thing.

[Hobbs]

Just for a little bit of background, I was raised Catholic, and I was horribly disappointed when I realized I had been unwittingly lied to all of my childhood.

I was raised, and am, Catholic. I don't think I've been lied to. This is completely a construct of your own making.