The same is true for the cultural subset of conservative Christians. They too are a community with a unique dialect in which words have specific meaning. And while some of what they say sounds like insanity is because it really is a form of self-imposed delusion, some of it is simply a matter of not understanding the dialect.

We need to be careful when we respond. If its clear that we don’t know what we are talking about, we lose credibility with them and with those who may agree with us but think we are clueless.

Good point.

I gotta say that does make me look at the nature of their words in a different light. Not that that excuses the things they are doing to get such words to be the law of the land, but it does make me look at the nature of such groups and movements somewhat differently.

I still say our community’s future is looking pretty damn bright though. :)

Maybe my comment really was too hasty. Perhaps I did attribute too much thought and perception to you when I noted that you had identified a point of contention in the faith.

I’ll try to keep that in mind the next time I think your comment worth noting or that a compliment is due.

The gay community and the African American community are cultural subsets of greater society. And as such, each of these communities has developed a dialect of its own, frequently utilizing words common to the greater community but applying a very different meaning. And as you get to even smaller subsets of these groups, you sometime end up with language that is completely foreign (watch RuPaul’s Drag Race to see what I mean).

The same is true for the cultural subset of conservative Christians. They too are a community with a unique dialect in which words have specific meaning. And while some of what they say sounds like insanity is because it really is a form of self-imposed delusion, some of it is simply a matter of not understanding the dialect.

We need to be careful when we respond. If its clear that we don’t know what we are talking about, we lose credibility with them and with those who may agree with us but think we are clueless.

A god with the intelligence, power, and skills to create the universe could easily provide the evidence. And since that god created humans with the capacity to discern and evaluate evidence, surely s/he would view that as a reasonable request, wouldn’t s/he? So, if that god does not provide the evidence, isn’t it because s/he can’t, is waiting for the right time, is busy with other matters, or simply refuses? Doesn’t it reveal a lot about the character of a god when s/he creates people with the ability to process evidence, but eagerly punishes them for eternity if they don’t believe things for which s/he has not provided evidence?

Priya Lynn,

It sure does Richard, and it doesn’t say “God is love”.

While both of you come from without the faith, you’ve identified a couple of the paradoxes of Christianity and points of division of its various factions.

We all know all about the religion of Rena Lindevaldsen. It floods from her in torrents across the pages of lawsuits and press releases.

Her god is a demanding fellow who has dictated the minutia of her life in the Bible (which he wrote by means of placing the exact words in the mind of the human authors for them to write down on paper, making him the true author). It is literal and exact, without error, and not subject to interpretation other than her own.

It there is discrepancy between Scripture on the one hand and evidence on the other, then the evidence is bogus. No need to double check, no need to think, it’s just wrong. It doesn’t matter what is true (small t), she knows the TRUTH. And if she places what is known above what is taught, then she is doubting God and has no faith and places her eternal soul at risk of separation from God.

In fact if there is discrepancy between political position based on dogma developed by tradition and only loosely tied to doctrines which are interpretations of scripture on the one hand and evidence on the other, then the evidence is bogus. TRUTH trumps truth.

(For example, because it is TRUTH that being a homosexual is sin; and because it is TRUTH that each person has a choice whether or not to follow Christ; then therefore it is TRUTH that being a homosexual is a choice, that homosexuality is not innate, that there is no such thing as sexual orientation, that no one is born gay, and that any evidence whatsoever that suggests some innate quality to homosexuality or some evidence of predetermined orientation is false, fraud, a lie. Because it doesn’t matter what a “so-called scientist” says on the stand, she has the TRUTH and it trumps evidence.)

And a big chunk of Christianity believes just like she believes.

However another big (but much less publicized) chunk has a different approach to faith.

Many denominations (and individuals in other denominations) see evidence of God’s intention in God’s creation. They don’t see faith in terms of ‘follow the words in the 2000 year old book’ but as a quest to know God better.

If there is conflict between the orthodox belief or the words in the Bible and what they see around them, they don’t dismiss evidence in favor of dogma but allow nature and observation accompany history and scripture in guiding their understanding of God’s Will.

God speaks to them through his creation and didn’t make his final unchangeable forever-literal communication through Paul 2000 years ago. Or, as the United Church of Christ puts it, “God is still talking.”

As these denominations came (or are coming) to the realization that gay is something that people are rather than what they do, and as closer communication and experience revealed no innate inferiority or flaw, this evidence of God’s creation is as strong an influence as the ancient words of Paul and they are able to apply principles from Scripture to newer understanding of humanity.

For example, if they see conflict between ‘God is Love’ and ‘gay people are an abomination’, they find the love principle to hold far greater weight than the rule about conduct written for a nomadic people traveling through a desert in ancient times.

One caution, this doesn’t mean that the believe the Bible any less, they just believe it differently. Rather than obsess over words, they look for principles. And the concept that ‘God is Love’ is given far greater authority than rules which distinguish roles for women. They see themes like ‘Jesus’ advocacy of the social outcast’ and find them more applicable than Paul’s instruction about what one church needs to stop doing.

You might say that the difference is that they look for the truth of the principles in Scripture rather than have a literal reading of Scripture dictate truth to them. Oh, and they don’t capitalize the word.

WOW. Ok NOW this is just getting to be BEYOND ridiculous and into a whole new realm of CRAAAAAA-ZAAAAAAY!

This is not to say that she or any of the other folk carrying on this rhetoric don’t still weild considerable influence on many people who have the power to make decisions. But still, come ON! By now I think I’m almost more depressed FOR them because of just how SILLY and RIDICULOUS these comments truly are. I mean what with her talking about how “we need to completely eliminate public schools” and that her best legal weapon is the “absolute reality I know from God”, I gotta wonder just what kind of chemicals is she filling up in HER coffeepot????? I mean REALLY.

Seeing marriage equality become reality for New York just has completely gotten rid of any fears whatsoever of them having ANY possible leg to stand on as far as ALL of us and our civil rights are concerned. Also, seing the kind of ugliness and just complete inanities come forth out of these persons’ mouths just makes me almost embarassed that I even let such things get to me at one point.

One final note: I never ever thought homophobic vitriol would get me to say the following but gosh oh golly it has in fact done so:

MY but the future for the LGBT community just looks sooo damn BRIGHT!!

Thank you all kindly, I very much appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts here. To all of the moderators and regular commenters of this blog, you all ROCK!! :D

Fair enough.

Recognize though that faith is personal. It has influence only within one’s own skin and requires no basis in reality, reason, experience or common sense. It is important to recognize this limitation.

While attempting to deprive someone of their faith is folly, using faith to justify ANY policy–especially one which deprives them of activities with equal or greater substance–for anyone but one’s self is even more repugnant: the impact is not merely personal, but social, possibly institutionalized interference. Laws for a society must have greater basis than faith to have merit, to be just.

Probably the only good thing the nut in Norway has done in his misbegotten life is shine a light on how utterly insane our own nuts are.

Organized religion loses more and more followers every year. The only problem is that they’re not losing them fast enough. Still, that means each day is better than the last.

I have a little twist for you.

“Yeah though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I do not have to stop and build a condo. Surely goodness and mercy shall both lead and follow me all the days of my life and the Lord shall have a home in my heart forever.”

You can not rob this man of his faith. It’s not yours to take.