Please Stop Claiming Jesus Accepts LGBT People

[formergothardite]

Hi, I didn't mean to comment and run - I have really intermittent laptop access at the moment and my phone dislikes sites like FJ.

FG, there are definitely Roman sources that talk about Jesus so I'm a little surprised by those posts - it's definitely not the case that only Jesus' followers wrote about him, there are many sources by opposing writers.

I think what confuses me is how eager some people are to prove that a historical Jesus (of any type, whether like the Biblical Jesus or not) didn't exist. I don't understand why Jesus existing in some form is such a problem? This isn't meant in an accusatory way, I just don't get why the existence of a Jewish man called Jesus who amassed a small band of followers in Roman-occupied Palestine is so beyond the realm of possibility. As I said, I'm not talking about the Jesus of the Bible necessarily - totally accept that it would be impossible to prove. Maybe it's because my tradition is more a Tradition-based one and so it doesn't really matter to me either way? Like what my church tradition has passed on about Jesus is more important to me than the Bible's Jesus - I fully own that and feel no shame about admitting it. Also I totally hold my hands up and say I may be wrong, wrt your comments and generally. I hope I haven't fallen in your estimation too much!

Speaking more generally, Paul's Greek is of a rougher, less polished quality and he also uses revolutionary language (sharing this with Mark). He also swears! I can see how churches may have found this more difficult to handle than say, Luke's very 'professional' Greek.

Foxy, nobody has to agree with me, everyone really needs to study the information and then come to a conclusion on their own, and people will probably disagree with me and that is fine, but I will explain why I no longer believe that there was a historical Jesus that started this all. Was there probably a guy named Jesus who was a Jewish carpenter? Yes. Was there probably a guy who claimed to be the Messiah and then got crucified? Yes. But is there any proof that there was an actual historical Jesus that started the Christian religion? No. It is, IMO, something that has to be taken on faith, not fact.

The story of Jesus as we read in the NT simply could not have happened anymore than the story of Hercules. Even a lot of Jesus' teachings are not unique. Variations of loving your neighbor, loving your enemy, turning the cheek and so on can be found before him. The mythical elements of Jesus are also not unique to him, they can be found in various myths that came before Jesus. Like I said before I think the idea of Jesus is a combination of several people. They didn't pull Jesus out of thin air, but IMO they took all ready existing stories and people, combined them and created Jesus. I'm not going to claim that as a fact, it is just my opinion after reading about the subject of Jesus.

As for the Roman sources, those are controversial too and I don't view them as proof Jesus existed. I'm using this website because I have to go help with homework but there are other websites, books and articles that discuss this subject too. This one just sums easily why many people won't accept these writings as proof of Jesus.

.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

This sort of explains why some people have a hard time believing there was actually a historical Jesus. You got a common name, with common magical myths, whose teachings were not unique to him and no evidence of him during from time he was supposed to be alive, so I'm skeptical that he was real and not just a combination of people and myths. I have no problem believing someone would make him up to start a religion.

[onlyme]

One thing I can't get past on this is that so many people suffered martyrdom for their faith in Jesus at a certain point in time and that wasn't occurring before. I haven't researched the Roman persecution of Christians outside of Christian believing material, but it does seem as though SOMETHING must have happened at a point in time to create a movement of people who were willing to die for their allegiance to Jesus. I do agree that there are many themes that Christianity holds in common with other religions, and I think any genuine movement was largely thwarted by the authoritarianism of the Catholic church. But I still wonder what really happened there.

[Mama Mia]

To me, lack of contemporaneous historical record could mean lack of reason for anything to be recorded.

At the time, you didn't have people blogging and instagraming every second of their lives. Records tended to be produced by officials of some sort, scribes, some religious groups and some builders. For example, there is a ton of stuff connected to various kings at the time, but almost nothing connected to the pre-monarchy stage of the Israelites. So, lack of record likely means that if Jesus existed, he didn't attract much official attention during his lifetime. His group of followers was fairly small. It's only after the group gets larger, years after his death, that they get mentioned in sources like Josephus.

I completely agree. I think people tend to look at things from our modern perspective which is based on written records. And discount oral traditions, which was how the overwhelming majority of information was communicated until fairly recently.

It's an entirely different mindset. If you are literate, and are raised in a literate society, you don't learn the same skills that you do if you have to rely on memory. We think about how we would recall a particular event we witnessed, realize that there are gaps and are fuzzy on the details, and assume that historical oral accounts by non-literate people would be the same. But that's not neccessarily true. Individuals who rely on oral history for their knowledge base tend to emphasize detail recall. Cultures that rely on oral history value and develop skills related to accurate memorization and retelling of events.

Just anecdotedly, but as an example, I have a close friend and co-worker who was pulled out of school in second grade. She didn't learn to read until she was an adult. She could give a word by word account for virtuually any event in her life. Whole conversations, plus the details of clothing, facial expressions, the setting, inflections used, the weather, who else was their, what the people wore. She could do that , easily, whether the event was 20 minutes or 20 years ago. She could also recount, with almost the same level of detail, events she didn't ecxperience - but that had been told to her - like her parents childhood experiences.

I know she's just one person ( and she's brilliant, so I'm sure that helps ), but my impression is that this emphasis on detailed observation and memorization is the norm among non-literate people. I also, as a social worker, had some experience with both people raised in this society who were illiterate (a few who successfully hid it until well into adulthood) and with immigrant groups that didn't have formal education. The tools developed to get by relied heavily on observing and recalling detailed information other people would miss.

I think we tend to think of oral history as a game of telephone, with a garbled message almost immediately. But I really don't think that's the case with individuals, and cultures, that rely on oral history for survival.

Also, regarding Jesus, I think it would be more surprising if there were written contemporary records. If we are just going off the " general knowledge" life of Jesus - he was poor and his ministry was primarily to the poor. He attracted a relatively small, relatively local following. With a message of disruption to those with wealth. Why would those in power want to record that? Until incredibly recently recorded history has primarily recorded the agenda and priorities of those with wealth and power.

eta: Even this conversation, which is a sort of history, wouldn't have taken place 20+ years ago. It would only be academics, or enthusiasts, writtig out their thoughts and mailing letters, or, possibly, publishing books or papers n the topic. Your average persons thoughts on these types of topics would never be recorded

[formergothardite]

One thing I can't get past on this is that so many people suffered martyrdom for their faith in Jesus at a certain point in time and that wasn't occurring before. I haven't researched the Roman persecution of Christians outside of Christian believing material, but it does seem as though SOMETHING must have happened at a point in time to create a movement of people who were willing to die for their allegiance to Jesus. I do agree that there are many themes that Christianity holds in common with other religions, and I think any genuine movement was largely thwarted by the authoritarianism of the Catholic church. But I still wonder what really happened there.

Something did happen. A movement started. Was it by a guy named Jesus who is even close to the description in the Bible? I personally don't think so, but there probably was someone(or a group of people) who started the Christian movement and IMO created the Jesus we know today. But this is just my opinion on it. I used to believe that martyrs were proof Jesus had to have existed but then I realized that people all through history and been willing to die and kill and start wars over all sorts of things that aren't founded in reality.

I honestly don't expect that there would be proof from Jesus' time that he existed. If he did exist he was just a guy who got a small group of followers and then was crucified. That probably wasn't going to get written down. I grew up believing that there was absolute solid proof that Jesus lived and it was quite a surprise to me when I researched it and found that there really isn't.

[onlyme]

Huh, well, reading the wikipedia page on Christian persecution, it looks as though it wasn't quite as dramatic as it is painted in Christian circles. So I will definitely have to look into that further.

I find the beginnings of religions to be interesting. I'm right in the middle of a book now, titled In the Shadow of Molech that is from the perspective of Freudian psychology, coordinating the ritual sacrifices of the Old Testament with the psychological need to find an "out" concerning the child sacrifice practiced by the cultures around the Israelites at the time. It is rather interesting to look at it from that perspective, to think of the toll that would have taken on those people. It gives me a little more compassion for the books of the Torah.

I find it hard to completely dismiss the idea of Jesus. A resurrected god is clearly implanted in the psyche of human-kind. So many myths contain that theme. And though people have died for things all through history, I wonder what it is they have died for. Country, yes, religions that have history tied to them, yes. But Christianity was fairly new. And while I can see the Jews dying for their idea of Messiah, I don't know why the gentiles would have jumped on board with it.

Anyway, even if it was all provable, the I don't think the Bible literalists have an air tight case against committed gay marriage. The perspective of the Roman world was different on this. All men had wives. They wanted children after all. Even if they only visited their wives for the purpose of procreation and found their pleasure elsewhere, they still wanted to be able to create an heir and a household. Nobody thought of someone who would completely have an orientation toward the same sex only. Homosexual acts were considered "in addition to" what you did at home with your wife. Like gluttony, you couldn't be happy with one person, you had to be spilling all over the place. Also, homosexuality was not that unusual, but the shame attached to it was "being treated like a woman" which has a lot to do with the misogynistic thoughts of the day-as much or more than the thought of two men being together. Anyway, this is the general thoughts I gathered from the book I mentioned before, though it (obviously) had a lot more to say than I can put down here.

I understand the idea that arguing from the Bible gives the Bible more credence. But there are some people who will not be talked to any other way. The people who have dismissed the Bible won't be a part of that discussion, but Bible believers need to have more discussion about the book they are so tied to in an intelligent, respectful way. Not only this issue, but translation history, how the books were accumulated, and what the whole purpose of the Bible is. I know Christians who could have that conversation but they are honestly afraid of attack from the homosexual community. Obviously, with both sides fearing each other, the hope of reasonable conversation is difficult.

[formergothardite]

And though people have died for things all through history, I wonder what it is they have died for. Country, yes, religions that have history tied to them, yes. But Christianity was fairly new. And while I can see the Jews dying for their idea of Messiah, I don't know why the gentiles would have jumped on board with it.

I might be wrong, but from what I remember early Mormon's faced violent persecution and were willing to endure it even though it was a brand new religion. They were also willing to engage in violence for their religion. I don't think Joseph Smith's claims were based on any reality, but he still managed to amass followers who would die for this new religion. Scientology is proof that you can make crazy stuff up, start a religion and get tons of people to mindlessly follow along.

As for Christians being honestly afraid of attack from the gay community, well I'm guessing that these are the Christians who want to use their religious beliefs to discriminate against gay people and deny them equality, so the first step would be for them to realize that the gay community isn't the one who is attacking Christians, it is their group that is attacking the gay community. From all my years as a Christian I have found that as long as Christians view themselves as the martyrs in this situation an honest conversation can't take place.

[onlyme]

I agree that the martyr complex the Christians have is over exaggerated. (And, I must confess here, I was part of that, and I was afraid of the homosexual movement as a whole, though the gay people I knew personally I was totally fine with. Just for the purpose of disclosure.) Christianity is on the whole a pretty fear based religion, though when I was in the thick of it I didn't realize it. But, ESPECIALLY in the conservative homeschooling circles, this fear is constantly reinforced. So even if the tales of Roman persecution are exaggerated, they are very real to the Christians, who are constantly living in fear of the anti-christ, who are constantly told if they don't take care to exert their will in the political arena it will all happen again, and not only that, they serve a god that tells them if they ever hold the wrong opinion about things they will be tormented FOREVER and not only them but their children.

So when they encounter places where they are told that their views are just wrong, that they are bigotted, hateful etc. they just dig in deeper. It's persecution.

They truly are afraid that CPS is going to come in and snatch their kids and force them to adopt ideals contrary to the ones that will make them acceptable to heaven.

I honestly didn't realize how hurt the homosexual community is by Christian rhetoric. I honestly believed they could overcome "with treatment". When I was confronted with that information in various places, I just couldn't continue with it and that (and the courtship culture of the conservative Christian circles I was in.) that really got me questioning. I can only put forth my own experience, of course. But if you just snarked on me, I would have been quiet (never the sign carrying type) and gone home-and taught my kids what I already thought.

I really think a lot of Christians are uncomfortable with the whole thing. If anything, giving them Biblical "outs" can be a way of allowing them to lay down their guns and research further without fear of the judgment of God. I know, for me, I was sick of pretending I had a problem with people I didn't really have a problem with, So, I do think they are discussions worth having.

edited for typo

[FoxyMoxie]

Thanks everyone for the discussion! Thank you FG for your explanation.

One thing that frustrates me is the lack of visibility of LGBT Christians.

[Foudeb]

I think what confuses me is how eager some people are to prove that a historical Jesus (of any type, whether like the Biblical Jesus or not) didn't exist. I don't understand why Jesus existing in some form is such a problem? .

I don't think that is a problem. Judaea at that time was full of people claiming to be the Messiah, no one contests that. There may even have been one who vaguely corresponds to the Jesus narrative arc. The problem, to me, is the people (fundies) who leap from there to "the historical existence of Jesus is in itself conclusive proof that all I say is true". I recall ben Sewald saying that there not being a tomb for Jesus meant that he truly did go to heaven and thus that his religion trumped all the others, and Confucius too. To me, the only fair response to that is to point out that the historical evidence is so slim it really can't be used seriously. Even if a Jesus person existed, who says someone didn't sneakily bribe a guard, untie him from the cross and give him a few days tlc before he reassured his followers all was well and then absconded before the authorities could catch him, eh?

That wouldn't prevent you from saying it's all a metaphor and doesn't stop you from believing, but, to those of us who don't have faith to begin with, discussing the actual facts is as good a starting point as any. And we need to underline the paucity of actual evidence if we don't want the fundies to win.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I agree that the martyr complex the Christians have is over exaggerated. (And, I must confess here, I was part of that, and I was afraid of the homosexual movement as a whole, though the gay people I knew personally I was totally fine with. Just for the purpose of disclosure.) Christianity is on the whole a pretty fear based religion, though when I was in the thick of it I didn't realize it. But, ESPECIALLY in the conservative homeschooling circles, this fear is constantly reinforced. So even if the tales of Roman persecution are exaggerated, they are very real to the Christians, who are constantly living in fear of the anti-christ, who are constantly told if they don't take care to exert their will in the political arena it will all happen again, and not only that, they serve a god that tells them if they ever hold the wrong opinion about things they will be tormented FOREVER and not only them but their children.

So when they encounter places where they are told that their views are just wrong, that they are bigotted, hateful etc. they just dig in deeper. It's persecution.

They truly are afraid that CPS is going to come in and snatch their kids and force them to adopt ideals contrary to the ones that will make them acceptable to heaven.

I honestly didn't realize how hurt the homosexual community is by Christian rhetoric. I honestly believed they could overcome "with treatment". When I was confronted with that information in various places, I just couldn't continue with it and that (and the courtship culture of the conservative Christian circles I was in.) that really got me questioning. I can only put forth my own experience, of course. But if you just snarked on me, I would have been quiet (never the sign carrying type) and gone home-and taught my kids what I already thought.

I really think a lot of Christians are uncomfortable with the whole thing. If anything, giving them Biblical "outs" can be a way of allowing them to lay down their guns and research further without fear of the judgment of God. I know, for me, I was sick of pretending I had a problem with people I didn't really have a problem with, So, I do think they are discussions worth having.

edited for typo

I agree that there can be more than one way to increase tolerance and acceptance. Perhaps a different view of scripture can make someone less hateful in this particular area. I've had in-depth debates about the real meaning of Proverbs (no, I don't believe that it commands parents to beat their kids with rods) for similar reasons - there are those who wouldn't give up their faith, but they might give up physical discipline.

OTOH, I don't think that arguing for a liberal interpretation is the end of the story either, because the question of whether your interpretation of the Bible gives you license to treat someone else like shit still remains.

This discussion reminds me of how I read that some Israeli youth in the 1960s basically responded to Vatican II by yelling out "we did so kill him!". They weren't making a historical argument. They were basically saying that they saw no reason to be grateful that the Church finally said that Jews weren't responsible for killing Jesus, because the centuries of anti-Jewish persecution had always been wrong and it had always been outrageous to use the Bible to justify it.

[onlyme]

\

OTOH, I don't think that arguing for a liberal interpretation is the end of the story either, because the question of whether your interpretation of the Bible gives you license to treat someone else like shit still remains.

\

Absolutely.

And then there's those who just want to be assholes, for sure. They won't ever give it up because they want that handle. But then, if they don't have an audience they don't have the power....

I just think there's only so much a person can do at a time. I know, there are very few of my old friends I can even talk to about it, but there was a time I wouldn't listen too. I do talk a little to some (I only keep in touch with a few anyway.) And then there's a couple I'm just kind of waiting around for, too see if they will eventually make a break and then I can talk to them. There's building frustration, it seems. When you come up against a wall and you realize you can't ever live up to what they are telling you-and that can get you looking around and wonder who else can't live that way... I don't know. My kids are pro-gay marriage though.

I just don't know if people on the pro side realize how much fear is involved. They feel like the gay community has a gun to their head saying "accept our way of life as normal or die." (and that's how they see cupcake wars and fights over public school curriculum) and god is on the other side saying "Yeah, well, compromise with them and I'll send you to hell and torment forever." And not only that, he's going to trash this country with judgment.... I can't tell you how many times I heard that Rome was judged for it's acceptance of homosexuality. Not because they went out and took over every country they could see and spread themselves too thin! But homosexuality! They'll never admit it, because their god is "loving" but if you look at it objectively, how else can you see it? So "god" has an even bigger gun, and they are caught between the two. Because the god they worship can't seem to do his own dirty work.

Education is the key, for the honest ones. I went to public school but I knew NOTHING about Rome. Everything I learned for years was in the context of Christianity.

It's sick. I look at myself and wonder how I ever got there.

[formergothardite]

I agree that the martyr complex the Christians have is over exaggerated. (And, I must confess here, I was part of that, and I was afraid of the homosexual movement as a whole, though the gay people I knew personally I was totally fine with. Just for the purpose of disclosure.) Christianity is on the whole a pretty fear based religion, though when I was in the thick of it I didn't realize it. But, ESPECIALLY in the conservative homeschooling circles, this fear is constantly reinforced. So even if the tales of Roman persecution are exaggerated, they are very real to the Christians, who are constantly living in fear of the anti-christ, who are constantly told if they don't take care to exert their will in the political arena it will all happen again, and not only that, they serve a god that tells them if they ever hold the wrong opinion about things they will be tormented FOREVER and not only them but their children.

So when they encounter places where they are told that their views are just wrong, that they are bigotted, hateful etc. they just dig in deeper. It's persecution.

They truly are afraid that CPS is going to come in and snatch their kids and force them to adopt ideals contrary to the ones that will make them acceptable to heaven.

I honestly didn't realize how hurt the homosexual community is by Christian rhetoric. I honestly believed they could overcome "with treatment". When I was confronted with that information in various places, I just couldn't continue with it and that (and the courtship culture of the conservative Christian circles I was in.) that really got me questioning. I can only put forth my own experience, of course. But if you just snarked on me, I would have been quiet (never the sign carrying type) and gone home-and taught my kids what I already thought.

I really think a lot of Christians are uncomfortable with the whole thing. If anything, giving them Biblical "outs" can be a way of allowing them to lay down their guns and research further without fear of the judgment of God. I know, for me, I was sick of pretending I had a problem with people I didn't really have a problem with, So, I do think they are discussions worth having.

edited for typo

You have more faith in the anti-gay Christian crowd than I do. :lol: I was one of the ones who were uncomfortable with the whole thing and leaped at a chance to not hate gay people, but IME I was rare and most people in my community were(and still are) perfectly fine hating and discriminating against people who are gay and any Biblical out would have been rejected as a liberal lie. I have had non-snarky conversations irl and online with anti-gay Christians and even if you are not trying to get them to change their beliefs, but just see how wrong it to force their religious beliefs on others, they don't want to see it. Most of them will admit that it would be wrong for another religion to use their religious beliefs to deny equality to a group of people, but they refuse to see how they are doing that exact same thing.

I think part of the problem is that it is supposed to be a sign of being godly if you are persecuted, so they don't want to give up the martyr status. They want to be persecuted and act like this is happening because they are living for Christ.

[onlyme]

You may be right. My girls get put down all the time from some of the friends they still have for being feminists and for having boyfriends, and there is an aspect to it that just gets plain mean. I ask them why they still try, and they say they just feel sorry for those kids, they seem so unhappy and lonely, so I try not to rattle around too loud, for now. And you are totally right about the martyr status. I mean, since you were in the movement, how often were you told that if people weren't hating on you you probably weren't saved? I remember hearing that a lot-even more "mainstream" preachers like Dobson or Swindoll. They do have an airtight wall that filters anything that will intrude on what they already believe and the word "liberal" is like a hypnotism signal that shuts the brain down... and "feminist" only gets them riled.

But I left, after 10 years in the particular church we were in, so it isn't impossible....

[nausicaa]

I completely agree. I think people tend to look at things from our modern perspective which is based on written records. And discount oral traditions, which was how the overwhelming majority of information was communicated until fairly recently.

It's an entirely different mindset. If you are literate, and are raised in a literate society, you don't learn the same skills that you do if you have to rely on memory. We think about how we would recall a particular event we witnessed, realize that there are gaps and are fuzzy on the details, and assume that historical oral accounts by non-literate people would be the same. But that's not neccessarily true. Individuals who rely on oral history for their knowledge base tend to emphasize detail recall. Cultures that rely on oral history value and develop skills related to accurate memorization and retelling of events.

Just anecdotedly, but as an example, I have a close friend and co-worker who was pulled out of school in second grade. She didn't learn to read until she was an adult. She could give a word by word account for virtuually any event in her life. Whole conversations, plus the details of clothing, facial expressions, the setting, inflections used, the weather, who else was their, what the people wore. She could do that , easily, whether the event was 20 minutes or 20 years ago. She could also recount, with almost the same level of detail, events she didn't ecxperience - but that had been told to her - like her parents childhood experiences.

I know she's just one person ( and she's brilliant, so I'm sure that helps ), but my impression is that this emphasis on detailed observation and memorization is the norm among non-literate people. I also, as a social worker, had some experience with both people raised in this society who were illiterate (a few who successfully hid it until well into adulthood) and with immigrant groups that didn't have formal education. The tools developed to get by relied heavily on observing and recalling detailed information other people would miss.

I think we tend to think of oral history as a game of telephone, with a garbled message almost immediately. But I really don't think that's the case with individuals, and cultures, that rely on oral history for survival.

Also, regarding Jesus, I think it would be more surprising if there were written contemporary records. If we are just going off the " general knowledge" life of Jesus - he was poor and his ministry was primarily to the poor. He attracted a relatively small, relatively local following. With a message of disruption to those with wealth. Why would those in power want to record that? Until incredibly recently recorded history has primarily recorded the agenda and priorities of those with wealth and power.

eta: Even this conversation, which is a sort of history, wouldn't have taken place 20+ years ago. It would only be academics, or enthusiasts, writtig out their thoughts and mailing letters, or, possibly, publishing books or papers n the topic. Your average persons thoughts on these types of topics would never be recorded

I will do some searching when I have more time at work, but I've seen studies that show that illiterate (not sure if it's total illiteracy or just functional) people, and illiterate societies in general (those without a more sophisticated writing method), tend to have better memories than literate people as well as longer attention spans.

History nerd fact: Socrates wouldn't allow his students to learn how to write, assuming it made the mind soft and lazy.

[eri]

The Bible, Torah, Koran, whatever, are hateful and bigoted. You can't really debate this.

[Firiel]

The Bible, Torah, Koran, whatever, are hateful and bigoted. You can't really debate this.

I didn't think anyone was debating that.

The Bible, Torah, Koran, Plato's The Republic, Virginia Woolf's works, whatever are products of their culture and therefore contain reflections of many of the problematic elements of the culture(s) in which they were written. That includes any combination of the following (and more): racism, slavery, genocide, classism, sexism, capital punishment, imperialism, etc.

I think that the New Testament, at least, is much less hateful than it often appears and is actually pretty subversive (in a positive way) for its time. I don't know enough about the cultural contexts in which the others were written to make a judgment call about them.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Tell me more about this Christian fear.

I've often separated the concepts of tolerance and acceptance in my mind. Acceptance means that you are fine with something, tolerance means that you realize that you need to put up with some things whether or not you like it. Acceptance is warm and fuzzy, but (to me) tolerance can be an even more powerful concept because it means that a civil society can function peacefully even when people don't agree.

Is there any understand of tolerance in the fundie Christian community? Any reading of history, to see that religious wars were so destructive in Europe and that Christians who were part of groups that weren't in power tended to face actual persecution? To understand that the United States was partially settled by Puritans fleeing persecution by the Church of England, and that's part of the reason why very devout Christians did not want a theocracy? Is there even any discussion of the fact that beheadings, kidnapping and severe penalties for blasphemy aren't just wrong when they happen in Muslim countries?

In other words - is there any room to embrace the idea that you can have your own devout beliefs, but you don't - and shouldn't - have the right to force those beliefs down someone else's throat?

[i'm coming at this from the POV of someone who follows religious rules that I know sound restrictive or irrational, but who also has no desire to force those rules on others, and who knows just wants the freedom to practice my own religion without persecution.][

[formergothardite]

Tell me more about this Christian fear.

I've often separated the concepts of tolerance and acceptance in my mind. Acceptance means that you are fine with something, tolerance means that you realize that you need to put up with some things whether or not you like it. Acceptance is warm and fuzzy, but (to me) tolerance can be an even more powerful concept because it means that a civil society can function peacefully even when people don't agree.

Is there any understand of tolerance in the fundie Christian community? Any reading of history, to see that religious wars were so destructive in Europe and that Christians who were part of groups that weren't in power tended to face actual persecution? To understand that the United States was partially settled by Puritans fleeing persecution by the Church of England, and that's part of the reason why very devout Christians did not want a theocracy? Is there even any discussion of the fact that beheadings, kidnapping and severe penalties for blasphemy aren't just wrong when they happen in Muslim countries?

In other words - is there any room to embrace the idea that you can have your own devout beliefs, but you don't - and shouldn't - have the right to force those beliefs down someone else's throat?

[i'm coming at this from the POV of someone who follows religious rules that I know sound restrictive or irrational, but who also has no desire to force those rules on others, and who knows just wants the freedom to practice my own religion without persecution.][

There are plenty of Christians who are all about acceptance and tolerance and not pushing their beliefs on others, but the majority of the anti-gay Christians I have met do not fall into that category. Growing up we were taught a lot of about how Christians have always been persecuted because of our beliefs. If you are living a Christian life you are supposed to be persecuted, if there isn't persecution then you probably aren't living a life that pleases God. Persecution was something to be treated with joy(James 1:2). But in America there just isn't a lot of Christian persecution which is a big problem if you are supposed to be enduring persecution for God. So it creates this environment where every little thing is turned into persecution and you look at life through a lens of fear that the world is trying to persecute you. Someone saying "Happy Holidays" becomes persecution. Stores being open on Sunday becomes persecution. People not smiling when you had them a tract becomes persecution.

There is also this feeling that America is Christian and that other religions should not be treated equally to Christianity because they are wrong and Christianity is right. Tolerance of other beliefs is seen as accepting and condoning sin.

[doggie]

I read another article talking about all these Christians think homosexuality is is just sex. They don't see all the other and far more important love and identity thats we all have.

[FoxyMoxie]

I don't think that's just Christians, it's a pretty common misconception. A friend encountered it when discussing teaching about LGBT issues as part of sex ed in her (secular) school. That's not me doing a 'not all Christians' because it does seem particularly pernicious amongst Christians, but it certainly exists outside of that. I think part of the reason is that when same-gender sexual encounters were illegal, it led to a flourishing of underground sexual activity, particularly amongst gay men. Therefore sex has been made to be a big part of gay culture. The same goes for gay culture and drinking - because of the stigma against gay people, they could only socialise freely in bars and clubs. They're stereotypes that have some basis in truth, but that truth only exists or existed because of oppression against LGBT people.

I have friends in my LGBT Christian group who work in youth work or as clergy, and they are trying to get church youth groups to be inclusive of LGBT youth by pointing out that if they have a safe, non-sexualised and alcohol-free space to hang out in, LGBT youth are much less likely to engage in the risky behaviour the youth leaders and others fear.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I don't think that's just Christians, it's a pretty common misconception. A friend encountered it when discussing teaching about LGBT issues as part of sex ed in her (secular) school. That's not me doing a 'not all Christians' because it does seem particularly pernicious amongst Christians, but it certainly exists outside of that. I think part of the reason is that when same-gender sexual encounters were illegal, it led to a flourishing of underground sexual activity, particularly amongst gay men. Therefore sex has been made to be a big part of gay culture. The same goes for gay culture and drinking - because of the stigma against gay people, they could only socialise freely in bars and clubs. They're stereotypes that have some basis in truth, but that truth only exists or existed because of oppression against LGBT people.

I have friends in my LGBT Christian group who work in youth work or as clergy, and they are trying to get church youth groups to be inclusive of LGBT youth by pointing out that if they have a safe, non-sexualised and alcohol-free space to hang out in, LGBT youth are much less likely to engage in the risky behaviour the youth leaders and others fear.

Makes sense. I have to say that I've seen a shift in the "gay culture" in Toronto, esp. since same-sex marriage was legalized.

Previously, I did see a distinct anti-marriage vibe among some lesbian family law profs, and the atmosphere in the gay village was more focused on bathhouses than babies. That's changing. When people join the mainstream, they tend to become mainstream. The old sketchy bathhouse that used to be just down the street from my old office is now out of business. The community center in the gay village offers parenting programs. http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/12 ... ouses.html

Objectively speaking, if you fear the overtly sexual subculture and the idea of a man going to a bathhouse, picking up a disease and passing it to an unsuspecting wife, the easiest way to combat it is by legalizing same-sex marriage. Because people who can marry the person they love and have kids and work in normal jobs and go to religious services don't tend to troll seedy places for anonymous sex.

[eri]

I didn't think anyone was debating that.

The Bible, Torah, Koran, Plato's The Republic, Virginia Woolf's works, whatever are products of their culture and therefore contain reflections of many of the problematic elements of the culture(s) in which they were written. That includes any combination of the following (and more): racism, slavery, genocide, classism, sexism, capital punishment, imperialism, etc.

I think that the New Testament, at least, is much less hateful than it often appears and is actually pretty subversive (in a positive way) for its time. I don't know enough about the cultural contexts in which the others were written to make a judgment call about them.

I think ya missed something there[emoji12]

[eri]

I don't think that's just Christians, it's a pretty common misconception. A friend encountered it when discussing teaching about LGBT issues as part of sex ed in her (secular) school. That's not me doing a 'not all Christians' because it does seem particularly pernicious amongst Christians, but it certainly exists outside of that. I think part of the reason is that when same-gender sexual encounters were illegal, it led to a flourishing of underground sexual activity, particularly amongst gay men. Therefore sex has been made to be a big part of gay culture. The same goes for gay culture and drinking - because of the stigma against gay people, they could only socialise freely in bars and clubs. They're stereotypes that have some basis in truth, but that truth only exists or existed because of oppression against LGBT people.

I have friends in my LGBT Christian group who work in youth work or as clergy, and they are trying to get church youth groups to be inclusive of LGBT youth by pointing out that if they have a safe, non-sexualised and alcohol-free space to hang out in, LGBT youth are much less likely to engage in the risky behaviour the youth leaders and others fear.

Do you have evidence that proud atheists were testifying against the LGBT community at this secular school?

You know, for science.

[FoxyMoxie]

Do you have evidence that proud atheists were testifying against the LGBT community at this secular school?

You know, for science.

Um, that's not what I'm saying? For a start, I made no mention of 'proud atheists' (my friend's colleagues were probably nominally Anglican or generally non-religious) and I certainly don't consider it 'testifying against the LGBT community'. Neither did I say, nor do I think, that atheists/non-religious people stereotype LGBT people more. I just pointed out that the stereotype of LGBT people being all about sex is very widespread and is made by non-religious people too. My dad is a humanist and said it when I came out - it's just a very common misconception, especially about gay men and bisexual people.

[FoxyMoxie]

Makes sense. I have to say that I've seen a shift in the "gay culture" in Toronto, esp. since same-sex marriage was legalized.

Previously, I did see a distinct anti-marriage vibe among some lesbian family law profs, and the atmosphere in the gay village was more focused on bathhouses than babies. That's changing. When people join the mainstream, they tend to become mainstream. The old sketchy bathhouse that used to be just down the street from my old office is now out of business. The community center in the gay village offers parenting programs. http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/12 ... ouses.html

Objectively speaking, if you fear the overtly sexual subculture and the idea of a man going to a bathhouse, picking up a disease and passing it to an unsuspecting wife, the easiest way to combat it is by legalizing same-sex marriage. Because people who can marry the person they love and have kids and work in normal jobs and go to religious services don't tend to troll seedy places for anonymous sex.

That is really interesting (and encouraging!) to hear. I'm in the UK so marriage equality is new here, but certainly in the bigger LGBT areas things are changing somewhat. It just makes life very difficult (and often dangerous since homophobic/transphobic attackers often target club toilets) for LGBT youth when the only LGBT stuff nearby is a bar or club, which aside from anything else makes it illegal for underage kids.