Christians showing love at Gay Pride

[fireheart17]

Next time I see someone marching around with a sign that says something like "God hates Fags" I intend to join him in his march. Only, my sign will read "Buddha remains emotionally indifferent to your sexual orientation"

Since "fags" can also mean cigarettes, you could follow him and say "God loves homosexuals....really."

[Hobbs]

I can't speak for Ghel, but personally, as much as I think that they are a step in the right direction, I admit I would be slightly offended if I was there and there was a group of people were there saying "we're sorry that the church has shit on you, can we still be friends"
I pointed it out in the comments on that site that while they have good intention and deserve credit for extending an olive branch, Christianity has pushed so many gay people so far away that we couldn't even begin to come close to being able to grab onto that branch no matter how hard we try... and that those of us pushed that far aren't going to try.

Go on and hold onto your hate then. It'll serve you well.

[Kaylyn]

Just a bunch of random thoughts that sprung to mind upon reading some of the replies here. I just woke up, so bear with me!

This is actually a perfect example of one of the many reasons I'm no longer Christian. It seems I always had to have some motive for doing anything nice; I couldn't be completely altruistic in the eyes of non-Christians. Apparently anything I did was an excuse to convert people to my faith, when the truth was I was never comfortable with the extreme evangelism my church practiced. I was told all my life that Christianity was the only way to get to heaven, and it never sat well with me; I felt it wasn't any of my business how people related to God, yet the church always made me feel guilty for not witnessing enough. So I'd attempt to witness, and feel guilty for how I was treating the people I was talking to.

If I'd made an attempt to apologize to those people in my past that I'd alienated with my evangelism, I wonder if I'd be viewed the same way some are viewing this group, even though I know in my heart I was being 100% honest.

Now let's assume the motives are pure in this case, that the group is sincerely seeking to make amends. In order for hatred between two groups to end, someone has to make the first move. One has to apologize for the wrongs they have committed against the other, and if the group is large enough they may only be represented by a small portion of it. I think I'm beginning to understand now that with such a deep rift between the extremes of both sides (extreme anti-gay Christians, and extreme anti-Christian gays) that no matter how sincere the apology, there's always going to be certain parts of the group that simply cannot reconcile. Smiley appears to be part of that, and I've accepted that there's very very little, if anything, that's going to change his views. Lord knows I'm used to it, living in the deep South where there's a branch of my family and people I work with that are extremely racist and bigoted. I know if I were seen in public with that part of my family and they behaved in their typical way (and it's horrific to hear what they spew from their mouths), I'd be wanting to apologize for their behavior to any nearby. And I suppose there'd be a mix of people willing to accept that apology and others that automatically associate me with them and refuse to listen to me.

Sorry if this is all rambly, it's my thought process on the replies here and me putting myself into the shoes of both parties.

[Hobbs]

I'm confused. Are you athiest now or Agnostic or something, Kaylyn? I was under the impression you were Christian (though if you mean "not practicing" or something, I get that). Sorry, just asking for clarification.

[Kaylyn]

No problem! I was raised hardcore Southern Baptist, and it was such a big part of my life that I remember vividly what it's like on the evangelical side. At one point I was very fervent in my faith and would talk about it at any given opportunity. No one could say they didn't know I was Christian, because I wouldn't shut the hell up about it. At the time I was hardcore pro-life, anti-abortion, extreme right-wing on any issue you can think of. I was told homosexuality was wrong, though having had no contact with anyone openly gay (found out only very recently that my then-boyfriend's brother was gay) I really didn't have a personal opinion about it.

I chose a Christian college because I wanted to make sure to remain close to God throughout my college experience. I got a little bit of a slap in the face when I made a friend that I felt needed to hear the Word of God, and she tore me a new one saying it was none of my business what her relationship with God was. I realized she was right, and it got me thinking a lot more open-mindedly.

I actually started learning about Wicca and Paganism and practiced along those lines for a few years. Now I kinda consider myself a weird mix of Deist, Agnostic, and Universalist. I feel that God exists, I believe that everyone should honor him/her/it as they choose, IF they choose. But I dislike organized religion in general, because it all has flaws, and I got too lazy and distracted to continue my solitary practice.

I've changed my views on a lot of things since being a Christian. I realized that a lot of what I said I believed was only reciting what had been drilled into me my whole life. I have no problem with the faith itself or with individual Christians. I spent that transition between Christian/non-Christian really using my own brain to reason out what I believed for myself, not based on what the church told me was right or wrong. I realized when I thought about God in the absence of religion, the teachings of Christianity didn't fit with my own beliefs.

This was probably way too detailed of an answer for your question though!

[smileyeagle1021]

Go on and hold onto your hate then. It'll serve you well.

The last time I accepted the Olive Branch it was used to hit me yet again.
How's that old saying go?
Something about bite me once, shame on you, bite me twice...

A lot of people, myself included, have been hurt too many times by the church, many being lured in with a false olive branch.
This is why I say that while reconciliation may be possible, the church's best hope (if they are truly interested in reconciliation) is to start by not pushing people away in the first place. Hell, doing that may even help gain the confidence of those who have been offended... I may have a little bit more faith that this group was on the level if I didn't see so many other groups who are still doing everything in their power to prove how inhuman and inferior I am.

[Hobbs]

Well, you certainly ain't superior by spittin' in people's faces that got nothin but good intentions on their mind.

[Ghel]

What's your problem with them, Ghel? Aren't they allowed the same free speech being exercised at the parades? Or is it different because they believe in God?

I wasn't saying that I want to limit anyone's exercise of free speech. I was just saying that I think people proselytising at parades and on street corners is tacky. Annoying. But I wouldn't do anything to stop them. In fact, I had a nice conversation with a street preacher a couple weeks ago. Very enlightening.

If all they're saying is, "We'll accept you where others have not; we want to show you that being Christian and gay are not mutually exclusive," then I am absolutely all for that.

That seems hypocritical to me. They accept some passages out of their Bible and abandon others. If they can use their own judgment to determine if one tenet is right or wrong, why don't they abandon the book and use their own judgment for every situation?

'tis a step in the right direction.

It might be a step in the right direction for that particular church, but I don't think it's a step in the right direction for the gays who've been persecuted by the church to go back to them, like a battered spouse returning to the same situation over and over again. What I think would be a step in the right direction would be for the gays who have seen how the Bible condemns them to read more of the Bible, investigate the Christians' claims of God, and see them for the absurdity they are.

Only, my sign will read "Buddha remains emotionally indifferent to your sexual orientation"

Except, of couse, Buddha is not considered a god.

This was probably way too detailed of an answer for your question though!

I think that was a great response. It's a much more honest answer about what you believe and why than we can get out of most people on this site.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The idea of using the bible as a guiding example instead of absolute law does not - hypocrisy IMO. No person or document that seeks to teach can do so with 100% accuracy, efficiency and unity. That does not mean one should never listen to what other people have to say, it just means that we should be vigilant in all instances and seek to cross-examine, analyze and decide on what we're told.

In this instance the people in question have decided that whatever case the bible may contain against gays is in conflict with the core beliefs and is therefore invalidated, in addition to stupid.

[Hobbs]

That seems hypocritical to me. They accept some passages out of their Bible and abandon others. If they can use their own judgment to determine if one tenet is right or wrong, why don't they abandon the book and use their own judgment for every situation?

Because they still believe in the Christian God. In a way, think of it like the Abolishionists of the 1800s. They didn't believe in slavery, yet they supported their government (which allowed slavery). Just because there was one bad thing about the government wasn't reason enough for them to throw out the whole thing. They were stronger than that.

It might be a step in the right direction for that particular church, but I don't think it's a step in the right direction for the gays who've been persecuted by the church to go back to them, like a battered spouse returning to the same situation over and over again. What I think would be a step in the right direction would be for the gays who have seen how the Bible condemns them to read more of the Bible, investigate the Christians' claims of God, and see them for the absurdity they are.

That has to be one of the most egregious analogies I've seen on here. You're comparing this to spousal abuse? If that's so, then you're interpreting it wrong. This would be like a woman who had been married to...Bob, was abused and left him. The marriage made her distrust all men. Then James comes along and tells her not all guys are bad, that he might be biologically the same as Bob, but he won't hurt her-that he'll treat her with respect.

Absurdities to you, but that's something else entirely.

Except, of couse, Buddha is not considered a god.

Certain sects of Buddhism-correction; actually, the major split between the two largest denominations of Buddhism is the belief that Buddha is a god.

I think that was a great response. It's a much more honest answer about what you believe and why than we can get out of most people on this site.

I answer you quite well.

[smileyeagle1021]

Well, you certainly ain't superior by spittin' in people's faces that got nothin but good intentions on their mind.

Two things, first where did I say I was going to spit in anyone's face? There is a mountain of difference between not trusting someone and refusing an olive branch that you feel may be a trap and questioning their motives and spitting in their face. Second, I don't care who's superior as long as I'm not going to be hit again after taking a false peace offering... even if it means turning away a legit one, the risk just aint worth it.

[Hobbs]

Two things, first where did I say I was going to spit in anyone's face? There is a mountain of difference between not trusting someone and refusing an olive branch that you feel may be a trap and questioning their motives and spitting in their face. Second, I don't care who's superior as long as I'm not going to be hit again after taking a false peace offering... even if it means turning away a legit one, the risk just aint worth it.

Two things. One, I was using a metaphor. I don't think you'd literally spit into someone's face. If indeed you would, that's up to you in deciding to break the law. Two, I think your lack of trust is your downfall. There are many quotes I can give you, or philosophical arguments I can wage, but I won't, because I know they will fall on deaf ears.

[Nyoibo]

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?

[KnitShoni]

Do minorities who don't trust white people have justification for theirs?

[smileyeagle1021]

yet when smiley refuses to he's close minded and has no justification for his trepidation?

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

Also, 60% of people in Hawaii who contacted the governor about the civil unions bill opposed the bill, most used religious justifications, Christian groups CHEERED in the room and out in the street and celebrated the veto. So, here's an idea, when Christians stop saying they don't hate gay people and start acting like they don't hate gay people, then I may believe that the church truly does want me back.

Oh, and when was the last time in the last 25 years that white people voted away a black person's rights? How many white people do you think would be cheering a decision now to remove a black person's rights?
With the exception of the Arizona immigration laws, which are being widely criticized by all people who aren't the ultra conservative majority of Arizona, there are no laws limiting the rights of minorities (and it's debatable on whether or not that law really affects citizens). Over half the states have voted in laws keeping homosexuals second class citizens and Christian groups nationwide have celebrated, and with only a small minority, that aren't even vocal, complaining.