Hurt/offended by the Church/Christians?

Enk, well stated reply. My purpose in this forum is not to debate, but if you would like to, I'd be happy to continue. I'd like to respond to a few things you said.

"Geologists can look at natural uranium deposits and formulate rough estimates of the earth's age. They can also look at things like crystal formation and fossils and radio carbon dating." - Scientific method to establish something as fact means it must be observable and repeatable. Carbon dating is effective in terns of dating things within the span of human's ability to record/date - carbon dating certain things can be checked and verified with human record. But carbon dating a bone to millions of years is still a theory and cannot be proven to be accurate. Even you, claiming it as scientific could only say "rough estimates" but we don't even know if that itself is a fair and accurate statement. Correct?

"If you want proof of evolution, all you have to do is LOOK. Go and have a child. It will look like a mix of you and your partner. That is essentially evolution. "
I have a child. I see her mother in me, and I see myself in her. I see my parents in her, and my grandparents as well. All in all, she resembles all of us. That isn't evolution. Not at all... not "essentially" evolution... not even remotely. That's genetics. What has evolved from myself to my daughter? Nothing. She is still entirely human.

Evolution claims that over millions of years, through the process of natural selection that eventually one species will become another species. There is evidence of microevolution (a character trait changing within a species - different color to adapt to a different environment, etc) but there is 0 evidence for macroevolution (one species becoming another species). Now if natural selection and evolution took millions of years (as it would have to move from one species to another species) then there should be plenty of fossil evidence of in between states. This is a gross exaggeration, but there should be a fish with legs, or wings.

If monkeys are related to human beings, because we have similarities in our DNA, why is it that our DNA is also distinctly different? Mutations within a species that would lead to natural selection would develop first in the minority... like children with 6 toes on each foot. That's a mutation. I have a friend with 12 total toes. If he found a girl with 12 total toes and the procreated, there's a good chance their child would have 12 total toes. But there DNA would remain the same structure. Monkeys and humans have similarities in DNA with vastly different structure.

If DNA is your proof of evolution, there are many questions to be answered. Beyond that, evolution is a theory about the origin of life as we know, but with no creator or higher being, where did the first amoeba come from? What is the origin of the primordial ooze? Evolution explains nothing of the origin of life, but only the development of life. The Big Bang is illogical in terms of physics itself. The scientific explanation of life is a very incomplete theory.

"Creationism is a myth which eludes fact yet demands to be presented in a credible manner."
Creationism is as proven as evolution by scientific as we have never seen anything that gives any scientific proof of either (observable and repeatable). But the bible is the most historically accurate document in all of antiquity bearing the most manuscript evidence dated closest to the source, with manuscripts from opposing view points that confer the claims of early Christians. There is exponentially more evidence for the New Testament than Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, Home's and Plato's writing all combined yet all of the latter are considered accurate historical works.

I've done research on both sides. I have not always been Christian, but logically, this is the only thing that makes sense. Creationism and anything in history CANNOT be proven by science, because history cannot be proven by science (prove to me scientifically that George Washington was the first president of the U.S.A.). It cannot be done scientifically, but can be done through the evidential method using manuscripts and testimony.

"I don't know whether to be amused or saddened or angry, or just ambivalent to the madness of human beings, which stems from their unwillingness to simply learn from the world." Be saddened. I think many people on both sides are unwilling to learn. The manuscript evidence, the dead sea scrolls, the roman and Jewish writings about Jesus, and other local writings written within the lifetime of people who saw Jesus all corroborate the claims of the New Testament.

While creation and evolution are far from being proven, evidence proves that the New Testament is clearly accurate in its claims that Jesus lived, performed things unexplained by natural laws (bible says miracles, Romans say sorcery, Jewish writings claim demonic help), and that he was crucified and his body disappeared.

And yet, so many people claim that Jesus never existed, or was made up by people creating a religion a hundred years AFTER the manuscripts were dated and tested to have been written SCIENTIFICALLY.

I appreciate your response Enk. Please don't assume that all Christians are unwilling to look at the scientific world. I studied math in college. Problems, evidence and solutions are not foreign things to my train of thought, and logic was the basis of my studies. Christianity to be is more logical than the big bang and evolution because there are things that science has not and cannot explain. I don't claim to know everything, not by a long shot, but from what I've studied, this was the conclusion that I found.

I'm not here in this forum to push it on anyone, but I wanted to make it known while I had a voice and someone interested in talking about proof that Christianity is not completely a blind faith (although faith is a key ingredient to it).

Thanks for replying and taking the time out of your day. It is much appreciated.

 

p.s. I would doubt that Jefferson would be replaced by Calvin, but I don't doubt that a teacher could focus much more on Calvin and his theories. I don't see the relevance of this in terms of the discussion on evolution, but I get the fact that Christian beliefs are hammered down people's throats in different places. Being in SF, Oakland, Berkeley area, your stance and view is much more the dominant view in culture and Christianity is often quite oppressed (from my own personal experience at SFSU and UCB)

 

I'm not going to sit here and teach you, as you obviously have something against learning.

One day, I hope you stop lying to yourself, and to others.

Such animals are living today, and transitional fossils have been discovered.
Chimpanzee's and ourselves have a common ancestor, which is why our DNA is 99.9% the same.

Evolution can be described with genetics.
You are arguing semantics here.
Chemistry and Physics are the same field on a different scale, the same could be said for evolution and 'genetics'.

It's not possible to know where the first amoeba came from, as there is no verifiable evidence. This doesn't disprove anything.

Objects in the universe appear to be moving farther apart, which can be evidenced by redshift and the Doppler effect, which suggest that previously all the matter was 'local'.

If you see a trail of footprints, do you not think that someone has walked there?
That's the intellectual concept you seem to be struggling with here, as demonstrated by your dismissal of carbon dating.

It's not possible to know what happens beyond our experience.
But we take the best answers.

 

and i think teaching creationism in schools breaches the first amendment clause.
therefore :
Matthew 22:21

 

Folks this started out OK but its drifting into a pointless pissing contest. If someone believes in creationism its highly unlikely we're gonna talk any sense into 'em so lets let it go. The OP had asked for stories of harm/hurt caused from organized religion and got a few. Now, as evolution is wont to do, things have changed into something else. For that reason I'm ready to lock this one up it it strays any further from its original stated purpose.

Yarapario/Super-moderator

 

Yarapario- Yes, I agree and I apologize. I have not kept to the original intent of this forum. When I read the first statement "I'm not going to sit here and teach you, as you obviously have something against learning. One day, I hope you stop lying to yourself, and to others." I realized that the debate was turning personal. A good debate with personal attacks just becomes an argument. If you would like, I am more than willing to go back and delete previous posts (not sure how to?) or you can remove the ones that you see that are not fit or acceptable for this forum.

Enk, under different circumstances, I would have loved to continue our discussion. But it is apparent that you are as set in your beliefs of scientific theories as I am in my faith and evidentiary history. Maybe we can just leave it with a handshake and hopes of tolerance - the allowing of practices that one doesn't necessarily accept or agree with.

A question to redirect the thread back to the original intent, and something that could be very useful to our church (using Enk's last quoted statement) -

"One day, I hope you stop lying to yourself, and to others."

To me, this was a hurtful statement because it demeaned the core of my existence. I know that Christians have said similar things to LGBTs when they say that they were born gay, or that their attraction to the same sex was something that they could not control. Our goal with this message is to guide our believers into coexistence and tolerance of a culture that they do not understand. One big step would be to make them aware of things that they might say in passing or with a genuine intent of truth (from their relative worldview) that might actually be offensive to the other party.

So my question is - What are some things that the church, or even just family/friends/culture as a whole have said nonchalantly that was hurtful? (please exclude Phelps, Westboro, 'abomination' and 'condemnation' messages as its been established that I as a Christian do not agree with that method of communication)

Once again, I apologize for allowing this thread to get out of control, for losing focus, and for falling into the stereotypical Christian apologist that I stated I would try hard not to represent.

 

My description of this as a pissing contest was harsh in view of the fact that people put good intention and thought into their comments. For that I apologize to all. This is not the idea format for such a debate however and I don't want to see a potentially useful threat shutdown.

 

haha. Yarapario - absolutely no offense taken. I do think the debate rants turned off most folks that would reply though. Appreciate the monitoring. Your "harsh" comment was a fine and quite effective.

I hope that we do get some responses to my last question though. We can teach our church as much as we want about the theoretical ways they should love a culture that they don't understand, but having tangible and real examples would be a great first step for them to realize how they can coexist.

 

I'd like to add that the whole Anita Bryant/Disneyworld debacle made me sick...acting like they were acting as "Christians", wanting wholesome crap or some such junk. Just made me so angry that such as "those" call themselves representing all Christians.
That word, Christians, imo has become so misused and used by those that I do not see as representing Christ, that I am hesitant to use it. Yet, I do believe in Christ, that he was died and resurrected to save each of us from going to hell for our sins, if only we will believe in Him.
I do NOT believe that God judges us on our sexuality, nor sends us to "hell" based solely on that. As much as many, many "Christians" will disagree with me, I just don't see it.
There is too much evidence to the contrary.
If being gay is judged a sin, it is not blasphemy. And blasphemy is the only unforgiveable sin. This is a fact that a number of (so-called) Christians are not interested in confronting.

 

I remember when I first researched the bible and homosexuality, I was disturbed.

However, it is quite revealing of how disingenuous it is, along with it's sexism.
It's obviously written by men in a male-dominant culture.

I can't really address the specifics of bible-inspired homophobia without looking at the whole issue.

I can't pick apart leviticus and corinthians without talking about numbers 31 or Judges 11:31.
I mean, just TRY and moralize those passages, or explain to me why even you are below this standard of morality.

Understanding different world views is a good thing, though some cultures, like Islam and it's honor killings and it's murdering of gay people, is toxic.

It's why I'm so wary of religion to be honest. Because I don't want to be killed by it.

 

On a positive note *ahem* I must fess up to having enormous respect for religious folks like Thomas Merton and Mother Teresa. I mean, if there is such a thing as walking in the footsteps of Jesus, then these two exceptional examples - did so - big time.

Mother Teresa is especially close to my heart. Her published letters reveal a woman that felt abandoned by God. Yet she continued to help the poorest of the poor. And all of this in spite of the strict opposition she received from the Catholic church.

Mother Teresa's life (to me) is living proof that we all can make a significant difference. Despite politics and religion. I still recall the immortal words of John Lennon:

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

That's what (I believe) Jesus tried to teach the world.

QP

 

So Beautiful , and so True....Mother Teresa was an example of a TRUE CHRISTIAN

 

If god is real I hope he destroys me.

I don't want to have a part in this universe, where the only heaven is one that rewards absurdity, a heaven that excludes rational people who are skeptical of incredulous and unvalidated beliefs.
How can sitting there in the clouds, with the knowledge that people are being tormented below you, be your heaven. Only a sadistic and maligned person could.

 

That's what I think. Shame more people don't.

I always say this. I wouldn't be happy to get into Heaven, knowing about the people who are burning in Hell due to this loving God not wanting certain types of people. I don't understand how anyone can be happy about Heaven, because of that. It's just crazy.

 

I totally agree, Tipsy. I mean, are Janis and Kurt in hell? How about Van Gogh? (He killed himself.) Such beautiful persons deserve way better than that: Their extraordinary lives say much more than their sad deaths.

Anyway, here's the exact Lennon lyrics. It doesn't change much. But it's always best to stick to the facts. I confess to being lazy - I should have posted this at the start. All apologies.

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

- John Lennon

 

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings timmr.

 

I have never experienced any negativity from theists that was any different from negativity administered from agnostic heterosexuals.

A theist saying a sacred text says its wrong is the same as an agnostic saying its unnatural. Whatever reason is given, what ever words are used, the actions and outcomes end up the same, and a lot of the time its just a defense mechanism anyway

timmr mentioned relationships being at the core. This includes the group or minority you belong to, whether its a certain religious denomination, the GLBT Community or whether you are a LA Lakers fan, there is always a certain we are better than them attitude.

Even get judgement from some of my own kind, just as a protestant would get it from a Catholic.

As for my kind, back to what I was saying about Genesis, Adam and Eve. Homosexuality at its most pronounced means a set of things in regards to the same sex, but it also means innocence in regards to the opposite sex. Which in the end is what really pisses everyone off

 

I get sick of hearing about the "Gay Lifestyle" as if everyone who is gay lives a prescribed, predictable life marked by who knows what. Another thing that really pisses me off is hearing about being Gay as a choice...what a crock of shit! So when did people choose to be straight??? Equally the reference to an unatural lifestyle is hurtful. And of course the great christian mantra of sin.

 

Fortunately, those agnostics are few in number and poorly organized. The problem with Christians and Churches is that they dominate the mainstream culture, some even wanting to declare the U.S. a "Christian Nation." And they lie by saying the founding fathers were Christian, when in fact most were Deists. (Possibly occultists with that early Masonic stuff).

But, yeah, you don't have to be Christian to hate fags.

Unfortunately, some of her followers here in the States are more into the Catholic doctrine instead of just helping the afflicted.

When I was doing volunteer work with AIDS patients at our public hospital in the late '80s, most of whom were still dying of the disease, the Sisters of Charity wearing their white sari with blue stripe were coming on the Special Immunology unit also.

Now most of the patients were gay men, with a few women IV drug users. The sisters were not there to comfort the gay men but to make them recant their unholy ways to get ready for God. A couple of the guys that I was seeing got really agitated after their visits and told the hospital staff to block any future visits from them.

Now as religious followers I guess their #1 priority was to save the guy's soul, but these mostly young gay men were just concerned about the ravages of the disease on their once beautiful bodies and imminent death. Not the venue for hellfire and damnation discussions in my opinion (and theirs).

 

Wow! Fantastic responses everyone. Thank you so much.

I do mainly want to reply about religion vs. relationship with God, but I also just want to put in a quick note about heaven/hell without diving too much into it.

A pastor friend of mine put heaven/hell in a very poetic way. We were talking about heaven and how I believe it is paradise because it is an eternal and intimate relationship with God. Hell would be being in a place completely devoid of God. His statement was that God loved us so much (in wanting to be in a genuine relationship) that he gives us the choice to be in an eternal relationship with him or we can choose to not be in that relationship. If you throw out any preconceived notions and caricature-like imagery that we have of heaven (angels, harps, halos, sitting on clouds) and hell (little angry goat men poking people with pitchforks who are trapped on little islands surrounded by fire) my friends explanation is quite beautiful.

A true and genuine relationship is one entered by choice. God could have preprogrammed a bunch of robots into following him perfectly, but instead chose to design us with free will. Those who enter into a relationship with him, enter into a genuine loving relationship. Those who chose not to believe in him or enter into a relationship with him have been given the gift to choose to walk away.

With that being said - I believe that Jesus' teachings, and as an example Mother Teresa, were very focused on the 2 greatest commandments - 1) To love God with all of our heart, soul, strength and mind and 2) to love our neighbors as ourselves. 1) Talks about us giving our everything in love. The ultimate intimacy is when you give someone everything- your heart/emotions, your soul/spirituality, your strength/your body, service, and daily living, and mind/meditations. Basically you find joy and completion in knowing someone and living every moment to make them happy. Whether earthly or eternal, it is a great relationship when both sides can mutually live that model.

Jesus, when he was on earth, sat with people that most of the religious culture that day had shunned. Tax collectors (i.e. power hungry thieves), prostitutes, demon possessed, women of excluded cultures (Samaritan woman at the well), and "sinners." Mother Teresa and other believers who follow the 2 greatest commandments based on relational living really followed Christ's example of sitting with EVERYONE in love with an intent of genuine compassion.

Religion is when people follow rules to earn salvation or redemption. Many catholic churches and even many Christian churches fall into this mode. Our belief is that Christianity is based on relationship (salvation is through relationship with Christ and our call is not to judge but to live relationally as Christ did in the world around us).

I think a lot of your posts hit the nail on the head not only on what the general world sees as a fault of the way church's are living their lives, but also what a lot of us in the church see as a Christian cultural problem where the encouraging words/relationships are so focused inwardly on our own church and only judgment is displayed to the rest of the world. We want our church to break out of its church bubble to experience the greater world cultures and to sit with them in love and compassion (My life was changed by doing inter-city work, spending a few multiple week trips to help in Tsunami affected areas in Thailand, etc). Our youth group (about 20 kids) have been raising money for world hunger and the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa raising about $30,000 for world hunger and $15,000 for HIV/AIDS in the last 5 years. We want to make our focus on loving people in need, and people in general, with whatever we have available to give.

________________________________________________________________
Some short replies

LynnBrown - to any believer who thinks otherwise just remind that of Eph 2:8-9 - For it is by grace you have been saved through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - NOT BY WORKS so that no man can boast. If we cannot save ourselves by our works, but can only find salvation through faith, how could we lose our salvation by works? Works will not determine salvation but faith in Christ. THank you for posting

Enk- I'm glad you're still in this with us! You bring very great points up. "Judges 11:31.
I mean, just TRY and moralize those passages, or explain to me why even you are below this standard of morality." Please exclude personal attacks. Jephthah made a promise by his own error and kept his word to God. God did not command him to sacrifice his daughter, God already promised that he could win his war. But for some reason he felt like he needed to bargain with God when he had already been promised victory without it. This story was not God's cruelty but Jephthah's foolish promise that he faithfully- and foolishly- followed through on. I trust in God's promises and know I can't bargain extra blessings and would never think that I could offer God something to make my experience better (Psalm 50:7-13). Numbers 31 is a command of a different culture in a time of war. It was to take over lands as ancient tribes battled. As a Christian was a reevaluating of that old law and he commanded believers to turn the other cheek, to love people, and to lay down their lives for the good of others. In regards to your wish for God to destroy you - see above. It is your choice to deny him and choose not to walk with him in faith. He loves you enough to let you choose to be apart from him if that is what you want. And thanks for the apology - I understand where you're coming from, but sometimes the way you state things can be a little strong. I know the church does the same to LGBT, that's why we're doing this message to keep them from saying hurtful things to others.


QueerPoet- (quick side note- I feel weird typing your screen name - what are the views of LGBT on people using the term "queer"? Is it a derogatory classification?) - John Lennon's song - wow. I listen to it often (Blues Traveler did a pretty decent cover on an album called "Working Class Hero: A tribute to John Lennon" where modern bands covered his solo work - love it). Thank you for recognizing that there could be positive examples of people who can do great things if they actually follow Christ's teachings.

Vanilla Gorilla - well stated with the "we are better than them" attitude. Being proud of what you are is a good thing, but being prideful is what sets off that defense mechanism you talked about. Many Christians are too prideful that they have to tell others how right they are, when Christ's teachings were to humble yourself and quietly but confidently serve others. Jesus as a teacher washed his disciples feet (and right when he told them one would deny him, one would betray him, and that all desert him). Can you imagine being humble enough to serve the people that were going to stab you in the back and run away? Ah. Great reminder. Thank you. I'll try to do something nice for a Lakers or dodgers fan today. (and I won't even mumble "Beat LA" while I do)

Varapario - Thank you for the specific examples. I didn't even think about the term "gay lifestyle" as a prejudice classification. I think part of the hetero world's problem is that we don't know what to say when we talk about LGBT. What words/descriptions are appropriate, not appropriate, etc. For example - a college friend told me to never call him hispanic, but say that he is Latino. Or yesterday, a "latino" guy told me that he could tell my daughter was asian because she had "chinky" eyes- <-- My wife and I gasped when he said that. "Chinky" is a horrible word that 5 generations of my family had to deal with in the states. "Gay lifestyle" "Unnatural lifestyle" "choosing to be gay" - Thanks. The Christian mantra of sin will always be around- its a staple of our faith, but should be seen and used as a reflective term when meditating on one's own life and not projected in judgment to people who don't believe in the Bible.

Shale- Your experience with the nuns is something we have talked to our church a lot about. Even if their priority was to save the guy's souls (which in itself is a genuinely loving thing to try to do) there are ways to go about it and ways to mess it up. Fire and brimstone messages may have been effective for a little less than a decade during the big tent revival days, but today it is the stereotypical evangelism tool that makes me cringe because it is not what people need to experience. If, as a representative of Jesus, I only had 5 minutes with someone, I would not want the majority of that experience to be me telling them they are sinners and are doomed. I would want it to be filled with excessive amounts of compassion, of sacrifice, help and aid. A church close to us does amazing things in their community ("Westgate Church" with a program called "Beautiful Day") - it is a compassion based ministry with "no agenda" - they don't pass out tracks when they help, they don't pull people aside to preach. When asked why they do the amazing things they do all they say is "I believe that God has blessed me, so I want to use that to bless you." They have had more people wanting to learn about God using a church that loves their community that much than any fire/brimstone message ever could.

GAH- long post. Thanks everyone. We're less than 24 hours away from our church service! I appreciate your time and if possible would love to even continue in this forum after its all over.

Any last thoughts? If you could tell the church one thing about how to love or interact with LGBT what would it be? (not related to demeaning or changing their faith please)