|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Announcement :: Civil & Human Rights : Gender and Sexuality |
|
Panel Discussion on Same Sex Marriage Wed. Sept. 13 at Channing-Murray |
Current rating: 0 |
by Nancy Dietrich-Rybicki
(No verified email address) |
08 Sep 2006
|
|
A Panel Discussion entitled "Same Sex Marriage: The Political, The Religious, and The Personal" will be held this Wednesday, Sept. 13th at 7:00 p.m. at Channing-Murray Foundation, 1209 W. Oregon, in Urbana |
Panelists will discuss the various political religious, and personal issues surrounding same sex marriage today. A question and answer session will follow the speakers, along with light refreshments.
Panelists include:
Kathie Spegal and William Blanchard of Equal Marriage Champaign County/85% Coalition
Rev. Karen Bush, United Church of Christ Campus Ministries at the University of Illinois
Jerry Carden and Tim Temple, partners married in Massachusettes 2 months after same sex marriage was made legal in that state
Co-Sponsors include: Equal Marriage Champaign County/85% Coalition, McKinley Church and Foundation, Community United Church of Christ, United Church of Christ Campus Ministry, Illinois Disciples Foundation, Activist Forum, the Social Action Committee of the Unitarian Universalist Church, the University YMCA, and the U-C Friends Meeting |
Related stories on this site:
Hate Is A Four-Letter Family Value
| 
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
Re: Panel Discussion on Same Sex Marriage Wed. Sept. 13 at Channing-Murray |
by Phil Stinard
pstinard (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Sep 2006
|
|
I'm curious. I don't see anyone among the panelists or sponsors who upholds the view that homosexual acts are an abomination before God. Will this view be represented by a panelist, or is this panel only made up of same-sex marriage proponents? |
|
It Says |
by In The Bible
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Sep 2006
|
Mr. Stindard,
You are welcome to your views on this subject. But it is far from clear "that homosexual acts are an abomination before God." Assuming you must be some sort of fundamentalist Christian, it should be noted that many Christians disagree strongly with such views. If for no other reason than "Judge not, least ye shall be judged."
There is plenty of evidence that such assertions are far more debatable than those who make them would like you to believe.
There are lots of alternative opinions out there on this issue. Here are a few:
http://anitra.net/activism/glbt/index.html
http://members.aol.com/DWFrancis/integrity.html
http://purplepew.org/
http://www.mccsydney.org.au/notasin/
http://www.ralliance.org/GamesFundiesPlay.html
http://www.whosoever.org/bible/
To sum up:
"What does the Bible really say about homosexuality? Actually, very little. Jesus said nothing at all, which is most significant. Considering the relatively small amount of attention the Bible gives to the subject, we must ask ourselves why this is such a volatile issue while other subjects (e.g. judgment, pride, hypocrisy) about which the scriptures say a great deal, receive much less passionate attention. Before looking at specific passages, let us note that everyone understands the scriptures on and through the light of what they have been taught. The Bible was not written in a cultural void, and many of its instructions and laws we simply classify as less relevant today (e.g. prohibition of eating pork)."
http://www.mccsydney.org/content/view/5/26/
As they note at the bottom of their page, "God has enough love for all."
Given the overwhelming skewing of messages in the media in favor of heterosexuals, the orientation of most social benefits in our society to promote and sustain heterosexual marriage, and the active hate pandered to by so many politicans in the name of "family values" while demonizing efforts like this, the need for such a panel discussion is clear. I really think those attending have probably heard plenty about opinions like yours and are well aware of such assertions. I really doubt you're interested in a discussion or reconsidering your views anyway. |
|
I'm Stunned |
by tsk tsk
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Sep 2006
|
|
Gosh, Phil, I didn't realize you were THAT way. I'll be having to work pretty hard on my forgiveness. The Lord will probably not have to work so hard at it, but I'm sure She's troubled, too. |
|
Re: Panel Discussion on Same Sex Marriage Wed. Sept. 13 at Channing-Murray |
by Phil Stinard
pstinard (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
09 Sep 2006
|
I guess the answer to my question is "no." Both answers to my question raised some interesting points that I'll respond to below.
I won't respond to the assumptions that people make about me, because I'm not easy to stereotype, so let me just say that I'm a Christian. "In the Bible" writes: "it should be noted that many Christians disagree strongly with such views. If for no other reason than 'Judge not, least ye shall be judged.'" That's a fundamental misunderstanding of Matthew 7:1. It helps to read the context rather than view it in isolation:
Matthew 7:1-6: " Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
Jesus didn't say "Don't judge." He said not to be a hypocrite about it. Secondly, the Bible teaches in many places that "homosexual acts are an abomination before God," so it's not something that I'm making up because it gives me pleasure to do so. If someone misrepresents the Bible and say that it doesn't condemn sexual sin (homosexual acts aren't the only one), I'm going to speak up about it. Thirdly, I know what it's like to be gay and experience same-sex attraction. I know what it's like to "remove the beam from my own eye." It's a big beam, but God helps those who call on His name.
I could write many pages analyzing what the Bible says about homosexual acts and other sexual sins. "In the Bible" writes: "What does the Bible really say about homosexuality? Actually, very little. Jesus said nothing at all, which is most significant." Actually the Bible says a goodly amount about homosexual acts, and everywhere they are mentioned, they are condemned. It's quite consistent. If you want to discuss specific passages, I can do that. The bottom line is, it takes a lot of rationalization and self-justification to
twist the words to get them to say otherwise, and after you've done that to eight or ten passages, you're left with a house of cards and a Bible you can't trust for anything. Sure, the Bible wasn't written in a cultural void, and you have to view the context of every passage in order to understand it, but viewing sexual ethics as "less relevant today" is putting man's word above God's word.
Jesus didn't speak directly to homosexual acts, but he did say that marriage is for one man and one woman (Matthew 19). Jesus also condemns fornication and lust (Mark 7:21-24, Matthew 15:18-20). And to the woman caught in adultery, Jesus said, "Go and sin no more" (John 8). Considering how little of what Jesus said was preserved, it's quite a bit.
"In the Bible's" last paragraph leaves me scratching my head and saying, "Huh?" I'll respond to a couple of things there:
"Given the overwhelming skewing of messages in the media in favor of heterosexuals..."
What media is that? CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS are forever airing programs and segments supporting same-sex marriage and speaking against anti-gay violence.
"... the orientation of most social benefits in our society to promote and sustain heterosexual marriage..."
... as it should be. Children do best when raised by two loving parents of the opposite sex, so it's in society's interest to promote that.
"... and the active hate pandered to by so many politicans in the name of "family values"..."
I'm curious what you mean by "active hate." Give some examples, and maybe I'll agree with you.
"I really think those attending have probably heard plenty about opinions like yours..."
Heard, maybe, but they didn't necessarily listen or dialogue. You can have a panel to promote same-sex marriage, but if you want to have an honest discussion about "The Political, The Religious, and The Personal," you should have real views presented rather than some straw man that you can then proceed to ridicule.
I'll briefly address "tsk tsk's" comments. Yup, I'm "that way," an ex-gay and proud of it. It was only possible through God's grace and forgiveness. Forgiveness is easy--all you have to do is ask God. Living your life in accordance with God's will is a greater challenge. I'm not perfect. I ask for God's forgiveness every day. |
|
I Think You Missed My Irony |
by tsk tsk
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Sep 2006
|
Phil,
I intended to turn the stereotype on its head there. I really have no problem with anyone's gender orientation. And I only rarely have problems with anyone's religious beliefs, so long as it's clear that they don't intend to impose them on others or to express the idea that somehow all those who don't believe the same are both damnable and damned.
Those sorts of people do cause me to question the threat they pose to the rights and freedoms of others. That is is the kind of person I meant by someone who is "THAT way."
I guess I have a real problem with making someone's gender orientation as a high priority on their list of things that need to be declared as abominations. It would probably be rated more like the biblical enjoinder against eating pork -- a bit outdated and maybe not even very well translated, now that the best experts think back on it. Just to be clear, I don't consider you to be an abomination just because I question how you can do that so easily to others. Heck, the list of people who I would put on the list of abominations before God is pretty short.
Bin Laden for example, is an abomination, because he represents exactly the kind of issue this world has run into repeatedly when the process of declaring people abominations before God is taken by true believers of all kinds to be the logical end of declaring such damnable tidings on others by some. Not that I'm implying that you personally have such bloody and fanatical designs on anyone. But of course this is as slippery a slope for Christians as it is for Muslims or any other religion. Just consider the Crusades, the near-annihilation of Native Americans, Adolf Hitler, or Jim Jones down Guyana way, let alone the imperialist subjugation of Africa and other parts of the world. You might say that if there was any Christainty involved in those things, it was a bizarre, twisted Christianity. Perhaps so, all I'm saying is I know where that path starts, with the familiar and the well-known, with what becomes acceptable in society to condemn in others becomes an expansive and blood-thirsty norm carried forward and turned into social, political, and legal damnation of the victims.
And if I did feel compelled to search around for the abominations that needed some serious attention right now, I can think of a certain president, who started a certain war under false pretenses. That man is a far greater threat to Christian values than anything I can think of. I guess it's easier picking on people we see all around us in our community, in our places of work, in our schools, in our IMC. I dare you to point out to me any of those who you have called abominations in God's eyes comparable to the abomination our president and sycophants are to her. Like I said, my list of abominations before God in this world seems to be a lot shorter, more specific, and leaving more to God Herself to judge than yours. And sometimes it troubles me that I'm not leaving enough of that to Her even with that short list. If you were me, I'd shorten my list of abominations to those that won't drive more away from the Faith than toward it. |
|
It says in the Bible... |
by Phil Stinard
pstinard (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
10 Sep 2006
|
For those who want a more thorough explanation of the Christian viewpoint that some people don't want you to hear about, see:
http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/dallas.html
It is an article by Joe Dallas titled "Responding to Pro-Gay Theology," and the third section on scriptural arguments goes into great detail on one of the points I made in my second post, i. e. that the Bible clearly condemns homosexual sex acts. This is a point that should clearly be included in any panel discussion on same-sex marriage that purports to be about "The Political, The Religious, and The Personal." |
|
Re: Panel Discussion on Same Sex Marriage Wed. Sept. 13 at Channing-Murray |
by Phil Stinard
pstinard (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
10 Sep 2006
|
My response to tsk tsk disappeared, so here it is again...
Dear tsk,
Just as I seemed to misunderstand your "ironic" post, you also misunderstood my post, rather completely I might add. No where did I say that anyone is an abomination in God's eyes. That is something I never said, nor is it something that I believe. I said that the Bible clearly indicates that homosexual acts are an abomination before God. That's not something I made up. As you very well know, it's in Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." I don't hate anyone, and although I don't like some of the things people do, it is up to God to judge people. I find it ironic that you, on the other hand, do judge people and call them abominations. For example:
"Bin Laden for example, is an abomination..."
"And if I did feel compelled to search around for the abominations that needed some serious attention right now, I can think of a certain president..."
On the other hand, you very graciously tell me, "Just to be clear, I don't consider you to be an abomination just because I question how you can do that so easily to others." That's a nice back-handed way of telling me that I am an abomination, and making a false accusation about me that the same time.
Here's another: "I dare you to point out to me any of those who you have called abominations in God's eyes comparable to the abomination our president and sycophants are to her." Only this time, you call the president an abomination at the same time you repeat the false accusation about me.
And this is nice: "Like I said, my list of abominations before God in this world seems to be a lot shorter, more specific, and leaving more to God Herself to judge than yours." Some ostentatious self-righteousness thrown in with the false accusation. Remember what I said about Matthew 7:1, "Judge not, that ye be not judged"? You can start applying that. If I were guilty of calling people abominations, you'd have a point, but I didn't, so you're barking up the wrong tree.
And finally: "If you were me, I'd shorten my list of abominations to those that won't drive more away from the Faith than toward it." Christianity isn't a popularity contest, it's seeking the truth and God's will. Christians have been persecuted and killed for their beliefs, and in some parts of the world, they still are to this day. If that, and the constant barrage of hostility heaped upon us even in today's society haven't discouraged us, explaining what the Bible actually says certainly isn't going to do that.
"If you were me"? Truly, I'm glad I'm not. |
|
I Call BS |
by In The Bible
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Sep 2006
|
Phil implies that the panel is somehow constituted to prevent "a more thorough explanation of the Christian viewpoint that some people don't want you to hear about." I see that a minister will be on the panel. Maybe it's because she is going to present a "Christian viewpoint" that he obviously doesn't want people to hear about.
I'd almost bet that when they're preaching that kind of hate at Phil's church, same sex marriage supporters have not yet been invited to present their Christian case. I moght be impressed if the first thing Phil had done was to invite them to an exchnage of views, they put him or another suitable representative on this panel and then turnaround whould be fair play.
No, Phil just wants them to go away, while at the same time claiming they are limiting what he has to say. It cuts both ways, at least if we're being fair. But I think Phil wants everyone to think that HIS point of view is the only legitimate Christian viewpoint on this subject. This panel is evidence that is hardly the case.
"God has enough love for all." |
|
An Observation |
by no bible scholar, but
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Sep 2006
|
Until the Reformation, the Pope was pretty much the last word in things Christian. Then the Protestants got tight with Jesus and the Bible and everyman thinks he's his own personal Pope, as long as he can quote something in English -- or whatever vernacular -- out of the Bible.
The Bible is NOT a fixed text. It and its various translations have been misused time and time again for petty personal agenda by those with the power to translate and propagate it. The use of words such as "abomination" in the English edition was an editorial decision, hardly the words of God handed down on a silver platter, as some would like to claim. And context is so important, so that quoting things out of both their literay, cultural, and social contexts is really comparing apples to oranges anyway.
Then you get people using the Bible to cater to their own personal prejudices. A look at history should produce a lot of caution in the use of such rhetoric of condemnation.
Phil, I don't think you're being quite honest in putting those words into God's mouth and distancing yourself from the implications of your decision to use them. You're quoting, at best, and the order of your priorities in communication in this age of injustice seems strange. If you are trying to find the Way, you need to find some forebearance in the midst of your zeal. And you might even find some peace in that, once you realize that, no, it really isn't your personal duty to force the government and society to live up to your personal religious preferences.
I doubt that anyone on the panel is taking such liberties with fairness as you charge. All they want is what others already have under our government. Marriage is both a civil and a religious institution. I think most of us would prefer that if you want to put your own special religious twist on what marriage is supposed to be, keep it to yourself. The license the state issues is good in ANY church. Why shouldn't it be valid between ANY two people? You're definitely asking government to KEEP taking your side in a matter of religious faith. Let's put it this way. The state is not forcing you to marry anyone. By the same token, why should the state KEEP anyone from being married, if they so choose?
If you want to quote the Bible to me about it, I think that pretty much proves my point that what you're talking about is NOT in my constitution, which requires a separation between church and state, not a cozy accomodation in favor of a particular flavor of religion. |
|
A Sign of the End Times? |
by a thought i had
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Sep 2006
|
Is it just me? Or is when Christians start throwing their victims to the metaphorical lions and then try to claim that they themselves are still the poor persecuted victims just the sign of the Whore of Babylon rearing its ugly head?
Dunno. You can read just about anything thing into the Bible.
Personally, I live by the Golden Rule. It's always worked well for me and I really doubt any Superior Being I'd wanna associate with will have a problem with it, either. |
|
Re: Panel Discussion on Same Sex Marriage Wed. Sept. 13 at Channing-Murray |
by Phil Stinard
pstinard (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Sep 2006
|
A lot of interesting stuff to comment on, so let me start with what "In The Bible" had to say. I have a lot of respect for Karen Bush, but I know her position on homosexual acts and disagree with it. I don't think that having someone else with a different point of view to present is going to cause a fuss, unless you fear hearing different opinions from your own, which it seems you do. As for me thinking that Karen's viewpoint is one that I "obviously doesn't want people to hear about," now THAT is BS, because it's something I never said, implied, or believe.
ITB writes: "I'd almost bet that when they're preaching that kind of hate at Phil's church...." If you actually knew what you were talking about and had any sense of shame, you'd crawl right back into that fog of anonymity you crawled out of. If I every heard my Pastor preach hate, I'd be the first one out the door. If you think that believing what the Bible says is "hate," then you have a really twisted sense of the word "hate."
Churches generally don't invite people in and ask them to explain why their vices aren't sin. I thought that this panel was supposed to be a public forum, but if it's an official United Church of Christ function, then forgive my presumption.
Asking for an honest debate is considered "Phil just wanting them to go away." Let's turn this around: "Karen Bush wants everyone to think that HER point of view is the only legitimate Christian viewpoint on this subject." This panel is evidence that... that is indeed the case.
-----------------------
"No Bible scholar's" comments are politically correct pop history at best, but they did get me to think that there is a huge tendency for people (at least in this forum) to misunderstand what I'm saying. The most fascinating thing is that I haven't said how I feel about gay people, yet the posters assume that I'm some kind of hateful, monstrous person. Anyone who knows me knows that that is ridiculous. That's why I'm posting with my real name. My best friend is gay. There are gay people in my church (as I imagine there are in every church) and I have nothing but love and compassion for them. I have a number of gay aquaintances that I'm fond of and completely comfortable around. I lived as an openly gay man for nearly thirty years, and was in three long-term relationships. So, anyone, ANYONE who says that I hate gays can jump in a lake. When the UCIMC website is working better and I regain the ability to edit my own articles instead of posting semi-anonymously as I am now, I'll post an essay I wrote last December about my personal experiences.
Getting back to "No Bible scholar's" comments, the Old Testament has a long history of study and exegesis that predates Christianity by hundreds of years. I'd think that the people who lived closer to the time it was written would have a better idea of what the writers intended than we do, so while words like "abomination" may not be the original Hebrew, you can be sure that they used a word that was equivalent to "detestable." It may not be pleasant to hear that and other things from the Bible, but the Bible wasn't written to make people complacent about how they live their lives. Instead, it challenges us to live better lives. It's a much better life for me NOT being gay, and that is my witness. Oh yes, nowhere in anything that I wrote did I tell people NOT to be gay, but if there is anyone who is weary of that lifestyle, I can share my experiences and try to guide them in the right direction. That's my real email address at the top of my posts.
Oh, the New Testament has more references to homosexual acts than the Old Testament, and they are equally consistent. If you really have questions about what the Bible says about homosexuality, check out the website I cited in a previous post: http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/dallas.html
Okay, I'll close this section by listing some of "no bible scholar's" misattributions: "rhetoric of condemnation," "Phil, I don't think you're being quite honest in putting those words into God's mouth," "it really isn't your personal duty to force the government and society to live up to your personal religious preferences," and "if you want to put your own special religious twist on what marriage is supposed to be, keep it to yourself." That last part is a beautiful ode to free speech, isn't it? If it makes you happy to think that, fine, but you're mistaken. My interest is in discussing the word of God with people who have the Bible as a starting point. That might not be your interst, but it's not for you to say what I can and can't say in this forum. |
|
Re: Panel Discussion on Same Sex Marriage Wed. Sept. 13 at Channing-Murray |
by Phil Stinard
pstinard (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Sep 2006
|
End Times:
The book of Revelation had a very specific meaning for the people it was written for, first century Christians. Hint: It's not about being Left Behind, Israel ruling Palestine, or global thermonuclear war. Or the Pope, red heifers, and one world government for that matter. If you want to discuss it seriously sometime, we can do it in another thread, but your interest seems to be in mockery, so mock away.
If you want some information about persecution of Christians, check out: www.persecution.org
By the way, Jesus spoke the Golden Rule in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31, so you're in good company. |
|
I Think It's HateWhen You Say Abomination |
by In The Bible
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Sep 2006
|
If someone at the IMC made a practice of calling someone a faggot, then I'd almost bet that this would cause problems for them, given that it is a space that is intended to make all people feel welcome and included.
In my book, calling someone an abomination is just a polite way of calling someone a faggot. I have a very difficult time seeing use of that terminonology as anything other than dressing hate up in religion. How do I see your position after using such discourse as being nothing less than somewhat disingenuous about what you really mean?
You can say that you're just quoting what the Bilble says. But then you need to try to make the case that that what you're saying means something less than what it says in my Webster's:
abomination: noun 1. an abominating; hatred and disgust (for a thing or person); loathing. 2. anything hateful or disgusting.
Do you really mean to say it's not about hate when you use that word? That only God gets to use this pretext to hate, but humans do not? Because otherwise there is something here that just doesn't add up logically. It's either about hate -- or it isn't.
Now if you REALLY mean something _less_ than that, i.e. something fundamentally different from calling someone a faggot -- a term of hate when applied against a group of people, just as you did with "homosexual acts are an abomination before God" -- and all that the use of such discourse implies, then you might pick a better word for what you feel. To say homosexuals are an abomination -- and I must say I do not find the distinction some make, including you, between hating the sin and loving the sinner in such cases at all persuasive given this society's history of violence against homosexuals -- is to say they are something to be hated and found loathesome.
To me, use of such language is mostly about people letting the Scripture do their talking, justifying their own cultural predispositions by invoking obscure biblical passsges -- we all could only hope that the president's murderous pursuit of war should undergo similar such microscopic examination of its motives, its burden of sinful acts -- and then trying to say how loving an approach this really is and we somehow don't understand you -- frankly that's a cop-out. For every loving Christian who believes as you say you do, there are a dozen who are just pandering to their own sick feeling of superiority and power through the intimidation of hatred that describing others as an abomination brings on those with gender preferences are not biblically approved. But maybe there isn't a neat little quote from the Bible about how it's sinful to misuse faith in this way? That's far more of an abomination than any sex act ever will be, but you hear nary a whisper about that all too prevelant sin.
Fundamentalist? Evangelical? I don't really care. I think we're having a deep doctrinal disagreement here, between those who believe in a God of Sin, Guilt, Shame, Punishment -- and those who believe in a truly loving God, one who counts the quality of any kind of human relationship first, who is unwilling to make crude generalizations about the value of anyone's life and actions in this world, and who is careful not to give aid and comfort to those who might not have the same emotional distancing from the import of such words as abomination as you seem to.
There are those, as I'm sure you know, who want to enact their own invocation of such an angry God's wrath in this world, Yes, you know there are plenty of people like that out there and using such language as you did really fails to distance oneself from it. Whether someone does this because of political expediency or religious belief, it is disconcerting and discomforting.
I don't mean to say you shouldn't believe what you believe or even tell others about it. But you'll have a lot of explaining to do. You can't help but be misunderstood if you use such language here. Communicating with others is difficult enough when you start off on neutral ground. Why choose to throw down this disturbing gauntlet, if not for its shock effect, unless it is really more about hate than I dare suspect? If you think this will lead to people better understanding you and your faith, just being frank, if that's what it amounts to, you really are mistaken.
How are we supposed to tell the difference between you calling someone a faggot, which I'm fairly certain you'd probably have the social grace to never do, and you calling them an abomination? Only those who might be willing to give you the benefit of a doubt -- to split these religious and rhetorical hairs with you -- will be willing to sit still while you explain your way past this giant stick in your own eye, however loving your intention. And I'd almost bet such open-minded people are no more likely to have patience with your explanation than I do. |
|
For the record |
by Phil Stinard
pstinard (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Sep 2006
|
I'll keep this brief. I NEVER called ANYONE an abomination, so please quit putting words in my mouth. Let me give you an analogy. Let's say that someone does something that the Bible says is wrong, like lying or stealing. Does that mean that I think that person is an abomination? Of course not! Remember that I was gay--I've been called a faggot and worse. I've been a liberal christian and an atheist at various times in my life and I know what it's like to have blind prejudice against other Christians. I have a lot of compassion for gay people and I think you're beginning to realize that. I need to work on expressing myself better and not take it for granted that others will understand what I'm talking about...
As openminded as you think you are, and I give you credit for making an honest effort, your characterization of a dichotomy between a wrathful, vengeful God and a God of love is artificial and an oversimplification. He's bigger than that. Rather than making God in my own image, I prefer to let God be God.
You're right about one thing. It's obvious that I have a lot of explaining to do in order to overcome the stereotypes and misperceptions that people have about Bible-believing Christians. I'm up to the challenge. I do ask people to listen to what I'm saying rather than their own preconceptions. |
|
