Journal Liora's Journal: Get a clue... still need input... probably from the trolls.. 47
I wrote a journal entry yesterday, and received some helpful responses to my questions about an iBook. I should have guessed, however, that my non-technical questions (this is slashdot) would get some lame troll-like responses. What surprised me the most was who they were coming from. So here is my response to a few of you (you know who you are)...
Wait! Last I checked every one of you has a reputation of trying to pass yourself off as the epitome of tolerance. Swell. Well, I just read what some of you wrote, and this is what it sounds like:
"I am tolerant only insofar as I am tolerant of whatever it is politically correct to believe, or really, wherever I want. You are shallow because you have religious beliefs that I don't agree with. You believe something is wrong that I don't believe is wrong, and not only are you wrong to believe that, but you are intolerant and rude and need to re-evaluate your beliefs. I am going to ignore the original question about what to do about your dad and step-mom not trusting him and how to get them to, and instead comment on how dumb you are that you don't trust him, even though you didn't say that, and also ignore that you don't try to convert your brother to your beliefs, you simply shake your head and still hang out with him, and his boyfriend too, but make it clear to them that you don't want to hear about certain of his activities that you don't approve of, and instead say that I'm not surprised to see such things because shallow people like you will always be shallow."
Good Lord. Where did you people learn to read? Either you really and truly did not read what I wrote, or you are not nearly as tolerant as you sound. I have a right to have my beliefs. I do not have a right to impose my beliefs on others, and I would not even be very nice if I were to shut out people who don't believe the same things as I do from my life, but you people, on the other hand, have decided that because we disagree, you guys get to make shallow comments? How does that work?
Further, some of you do not like my crack addict analogy. Please reread the previous and substitute my not wanting to hear someone bragging about how they voted a KKK member into office, or how they dropped a bomb on a third world country, and you still have the same concept. These are things that I believe are wrong. You don't have to believe that they are wrong; you don't have to agree with me at all. But the instant you tell me I am shallow because I have a belief, you have lost all semblance of tolerance and are now exactly what you are accusing me of: intolerant. And if you want to talk about how the world is not nearly as black and white as I see it, well, I'm sorry, but I have chosen to see black and white and grey. I'm sorry if your world is so boring and has only shades of grey.
I am still interested in trying to figure out how to convince my dad and his wife to re-establish communication with my brother without validating their opinion that his lifestyle is wrong. Because I believe his lifestyle is wrong, but I don't think that I get to dictate what people's lifestyles are, and while I can't stand up for his lifestyle, I can stand up for him. The reason I still hang out with my brother is because I value him and I don't value judging him at all. I wish I could get them to take the same stance. Who cares if you disagree? Who cares if you think someone is wrong? You should still care about them and want them there at Thanksgiving with you. You should still talk to them and love them. This is as ridiculous as not inviting my brother to Thanksgiving because we know he voted Green and we all voted Democrat. Democrats and Greens can sit at the same freaking table, but apparently I am the only Democrat in the bunch who wants to make friends with everybody, even the Greens.
Ok, rant over. Anyone got any advice?
BTW, some of this is merely annoyance at the responses of a few friends via email, not on the thread. The people on the thread were pretty nice I think.
Interesting (Score:2)
Anyway, as the saying goes: "hate the sin but not the sinner". I think you are taking the right approach. You shouldn't alienate your brother. The only time we're told to do something like that is if they claim to be a Christian but are instead blatantly living in sin (Matt. 18:15-17).
My wife had a homosexual uncle that died of Aids not too long ago. She never stopped loving him as a uncle but of course didn't agree with his lifestyle. I think the key is to separating the sin from the sinner.. and it sounds like you are doing a good job at that. All you can really do is pray for your brother and, if an opportunity arises, tell him why you don't approve of his lifestyle and that you are concerned for him. You should do that out of your love for him..
Re:Interesting (Score:1)
Most who would make that criticism see tolerance as a virtue in and of itself, and define it in terms judging actions only when someone is hurt by them. By that reasoning, tolerance doesn't call for us to let intolerance go unjudged - since it can do injury to the people who are the object of intolerance. And when the Christian view is that people who feel romantic love for members of their own sex aren't as good as anyone else, that's an intolerant view.
You know, if I weren't familiar with your posting, I'd be convinced that I'd been baited.
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
Most who would make that criticism see tolerance as a virtue in and of itself, and define it in terms judging actions only when someone is hurt by them. By that reasoning, tolerance doesn't call for us to let intolerance go unjudged - since it can do injury to the people who are the object of intolerance. And when the Christian view is that people who feel romantic love for members of their own sex aren't as good as anyone else, that's an intolerant view.
In regards to tolernace, I put the Word of God above any cultural / political norm and believe it is an absolute. 50 years ago homosexuality was considered "not the norm" and an abomination by many. In 50 more years, who knows what we will consider it. I don't believe that man and the world in general should be the source of absolutes, but rather the Bible. If that makes me intolerant of certain political issues at the time, so be it. I'm accountable to how I follow the Book.
However, there is an important distinction. Although I may disagree with homosexuality and other things like abortion, I don't believe the solution is to go around condemning people and being putting on heirs of self-righteousness. That is exactly the opposite of what the Bible says to do.. We're supposed to love people no matter what they are into, what they are doing, etc. If I or any other Christian doesn't do that, he/she is in sin, and not upholding what the Bible says to do.. (Love thy neighbor!).
For the record, I don't hate anyone who is homosexual. I am a little uncomfortable when I go into a restaraunt and get waited on by someone rather "gay" but I certainly don't make a scene about it. I avoid watching Will and Grace on TV. I think that is a sign of tolerance. However, if someone asks me about homosexuality and what I think about it, I'm definitely going to say what the Bible says in as loving a way as possible.
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Informative)
There are a lot of GLBT groups that say that the Bible is translated incorrectly in the passages where homosexuality is mentioned. There are also those that say that those parts were added later, or even that those that condemn their lifestyles are fabricated, or that today's cultural context is different than the one in which the Bible was written so a different interpretation is in order. Here is what I have to say to them.
Promiscuity and pre-marital sex are mentioned so many times in the Bible, that if someone calls themselves a Christian, they cannot possibly hope to dispute that those things are not right. Even if we were to just as an exercise ignore all of the Biblical passages that state homosexuality is wrong, we are faced with three gripping facts. (1) Promiscuity permeates the GLBT community. That should say something. Sure, it also permeates the heterosexual community, but according to my observations it is to a much lesser extent. (2) Pre-marital sex is wrong, and unless homosexuals live in California, or outside of the states entirely, if they are sexually active they are having pre-marital sex because same-sex marriages are illegal in all 49 other states of the union. (3) Even if they are to get married, that is assuming that God blesses same sex marriages. In all 66 books of the Bible, not a single blessed same-sex marriage is mentioned. Every mention of homosexuality is in a negative light, and all descriptions of marriage-relationships seem to exclude that possibility.
My conclusion? Even if we throw out all of the evidence that shows that homosexuality is wrong, the lack of any positive passages still overwhelmingly point to it being wrong. That also makes me think that their wanting to toss out everything that they don't like is more evidence that they just want to be considered right, and don't really care what God thinks about it at all. Without divine revelation to the contrary [read: unless God comes and tells me something different], I am going to hold fast to my belief on the matter.
Augh (Score:1)
I'm not saying that you're wrong, merely that I disagree with your opinion, and thought you might like to consider a few different points of view.
Re:Augh (Score:2)
That said, I don't know where you live, but where I live, most of the homosexuals sleep around a lot. I know a lot of them, and they think it is normal. It is also normal for them to be in one committed relationship but to be sleeping with several other people and their partner isn't supposed to mind. Yeah, some are not, some abstain from sex, and some of those even go to my church. But I think I know a pretty good sample of them here, and it seems I am right.
Bringing law into it really would be pertinent if we were talking about such things because the New Testament describes our responsibility to obeying the law.
Finally, since I believe in a God that can heal, no, the other alternatives for Christian homosexuals is to get prayer, not any of the stuff that you mentioned. I'm more than happy to pray for people for that, and some of the people I've prayed for have seen tremendous changes in their lives. Have you ever read the Bible? If you are a Christian, especially a Evangelical, you are supposed to believe that the Bible is true. Well the Bible says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." If God can do that, then I would think that helping someone out with a sexual preference problem would be a comparative piece of cake... if someone wants help, that is....
I know you're not a Christian, so that maybe doesn't seem terribly relevent to you, but if someone is a Christian homosexual, by definition of "Christian" they have got to be reminded that that is an option. But yeah, it's hard, and for some, asking for prayer "to change" is probably not the first step, the first step for me with anything is often asking for prayer to "want to want to change," and then to "want to change" and then eventually "to change."
Well...not quite (Score:2)
Um, nope. It isn't. For better or worse it is a simple fact and no responsible member of the gay community has ever claimed otherwise. I could give you a list of quotes a mile long. Choose your source. HX? The Advocate? GMHC newsletters? Perhaps Leatherfolk?
Whatever may or may not be going on among the respective sexuality groupings, the existance and, in fact key role, of baths, bars, and beaches in at least gay male society has no exact counterpart in the het world.
I certainly agree with the general gist of what you're saying but let's keep our facts, um straight.
Rustin
Re:Interesting (Score:1)
I gather, from the rest of this thread, that your brother will not be there at Thanksgiving
Well I don't think I've ever met a gay person before but I guess there's a first time for everything. In this case the first time will have to be some other time. That's probably just as well though, since I'd probably be bubbling over with all these sex-related questions, which he'd probably find really annoying (for example, I'd just love to know what he thinks of the cartoon South Park b/c on that show the kids always call things "gay" like it's an insult or something. Their use of "gay" kind of resembles how I will call things "retarded", though I guess calling things "retarded" probably isn't the most p.c. term either(?). Aren't gay people bothered by people's use of the word "gay" as an insult? I know I am. Okay, it's probably not even worth asking.). I had this friend who got really annoyed b/c every time people found out he was color-blind they'd be like "what does this look like? what color is this?" pointing at various objects in the room or whatever. Nevermind.
For the record, I think prayer is a good thing.
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
A value system that considers tolerance an absolute virtue wouldn't reject homosexuality for itself now, 50 years ago, or 50 years hence. The emergence of value systems that do regard tolerance so highly is relatively new, and might not remain in the mainstream - but one might argue that such a system is as valid as the Christian one.
Keeping your condemnation under your hat is commendable; it seems that the most vocal and visable Christians do anything but. But, I'd hardly say that not making a scene and not watching Will and Grace is a sign of tolerance, for this reason: what happens when the glh-analog in HR is presented with an aparently homosexual job candidate. Given the choice (assuming other candidates, perhaps of only slightly lesser ability existed), knowing that you'd be uncomfortable, would you hire them? Or if you were in public office: would you have approved of homosexual monogamous partners receiving government funds in the wake of the 9-11 disaster, the same way heterosexual wives and husbands did?
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
The problem I have with this is how you decide what is the word of God, and what's the word of man. By the time it's made it into English, there are numerous opportunities for mistranslations. But that aside, the one thing about the Bible that's always bugged me is how it came about. I'm told repeatedly that the Bible is the definitive word of God. But the Bible is merely a collection of writings by various people over a period of a few hundred years. At some point (and I don't know exactly when), someone sat down and collated them into what we now call the Bible. The question is, who decided which writings made it into the book, and hence were the word of God, and which were omitted? Are we sure that all of those that were omitted were "false"? Can we be sure that all those that were included are "true"? If so, how? The only answer I've got (and I've had it from Christians, Jehovas Witnesses and Jews) is that the Bible is the word of God because it says so in the Bible. For someone like me without faith, that's not the most convincing of answers...
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
If you are really into searching and finding out more about the history of the Bible, I encourage you to look into Josh McDowell's book "Evidence that demands a verdict". I'd be glad to help answer any question you might have and get a little more in depth with it. In fact, this might be another good topic for Bible_Study_Guys.
One thing the Bible does teach is that we are supposed to have faith based on knowledge. I don't think just saying "because it says so" is a good answer in proving the Bible. That logic could easily make any and every other religion just as valid because it is based on personal experience. Granted, there is still faith required (without faith it is impossible to please God and know Him) but He gives us the faith and we are saved through it. (Eph. 2:8).
Re:Interesting (Score:1)
So essentially, a group of "wise men" decided what should go into the Bible, and hence what is viewed today as the word of God? I'm not sure that's quite what you intended to say, but that's how it reads to me.
Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll have a look.
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
However, we get much of the books in the modern Bible due to the decisions made at the Council of Trent (although the scriptures that they used were the ones that the original early church fathers also identified). You can read more about it here:
http://www.forerunner.com/chalcedon/X0020_15._C
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
Rustin
Equivocation (Score:2)
Second: your last journal entry made it sound like you want to support your brother, but not support his choice of lifestyle. This one doesn't make it clear that you aren't taking this position. I guess its that you're trying to make that particular distinction that disturbs me, at least. Ultimately, my experience is that you support someone by supporting their decisions - what else are we worth? Plenty, but by repudiating someone's choices, you're ultimately suggesting that you could run their life better.
Maybe this is a GenX/Y distinction; I can't leave the line of reasoning alone until it concludes, and "I support you, but not your decisions" is about as tenable as, say "...but I still find you attractive and would like to maintain our level of affection" - it looks good at face value, but ultimately it leads to tears.
Which lead me to my last point: tolerance and discrimination are not antonyms. I'll tolerate your opinions into the ground, but I'm not going to tell you that they're right or just. Most of the other public responses were essentially along those lines, IMO.
Re:Equivocation (Score:2)
Loving someone but not everything they do is not generational, it's Biblical. Jesus instructs me to love everyone. Not agree with everyone. This is where the part where I think I may be different than a lot of people. To say that one does something is one thing, to actually do it, is a completely different other thing. When you love someone, what do you do? You care about that person, you like them, you spend time with them, you talk to them, you pray for them, you help them. All of which I do for my brother. And I have to do, because I love him. Disagreeing on something is just that, disagreeing on something. It is not the end of the world.
And sure, I think that he's wrong. And he knows I think he's wrong (although perhaps the reason I was irked recently was because he doesn't understand what real Christians do either, and he takes my obvious love for him as agreeing with him, and it may be that he has forgotten that I disagree with him because I haven't reminded him recently enough).
I actually have a hunch that it is the very line of thinking you are unable to shake, the inability to leave things like that unresolved, that has led to so many murders, so much hatred, so many divorces, and so many negative stereotypes of various peoples. Imagine: you are married, your spouse and you have grown a little differently. You disagree on some things. If divorce is not an option, that is, you both agree that it is not an option, there is only one other thing that can be done. Where possible, you have to compromise, where that is not possible, you have to agree to disagree. Why can't everyone do that? I can't think of a single religion that doesn't state you have to love everyone. If you really believe your religion, you really have to love everyone, and anything else isn't an option. At least, it isn't an option for me, because disobeying God isn't an option for me, at least not if I can help it.
Re:Equivocation (Score:1)
Apart from recognizing that the complexities of family life are, as always, a slippery mire I'm not not sure I want to get into, I think you have some recourse in that position. The reponse to "That wouldn't really work" is "Oh? Why not? I mean, he is my brother and your step-son." You might also decide now how you'll cope if you father's wife refuses to allow your brother to attend a family Thanksgiving. Ultimately, how far are you willing to go to stand up for your brother? Chinese with him and your respective boyfriends? So long as you're aware of what stake you're willing to play with, you ought to be able to at least get your brother acknowledged again.
I actually have a hunch that it is the very line of thinking you are unable to shake, the inability to leave things like that unresolved, that has led to so many murders, so much hatred, so many divorces, and so many negative stereotypes of various peoples.
I have to disagree. It's following things to their conclusions that can stop most of those things - except maybe divorces. Most importantly, reaching those conclusions points out where the compromises might lie, or when it isn't worth trying. Neither am I suggesting that in order to support someone's decisions that you need to agree with them; but part of that support is how you deal with the disagreement.
On the contrary, avoiding those conclusions leads one to act in ways that might be hurtful or disastrous. Like, for instance, marrying someone who you might later despise, knowing that you'll feel constrained not to seek divorce as a solution.
In retrospect, I think that my hair-trigger reaction is based on the fact that, though we obviously arrive at our value system in radically different ways, I've come to believe that you're a stand-up gal. After all, you're buying a Mac! It's just that, that difference in backgrounds means that you'll express things in a way that causes me to doubt that belief.
So, would you do me a favor: which of these is a better representative of Liora reminding her gay brother that she's not down with the gay thang?
Re:Equivocation (Score:2)
As for number one, I am not really standing up for him insomuch as I'm trying to get Dad and his wife to see that their cutting themselves off from him just because they don't agree is wrong. That is, while I am going to mention that their paranoia around him is crazy, I am not going to tell them that I think what he is doing is all right when I don't. Also, about the GLBT con, I really don't want to know, although he already told me. The last thing I need is for him to start calling me, drunk, in the middle of the night, trying to convince me that he is right again. Finally, after a lot of that, we reached the concensus that we disagree and I don't want to hear about it. Sure he can mention his boyfriend, who I've met and is very nice, but I don't want to hear about lobbyist groups.
Anyway, hopefully I'll get everything straightened out when I get home on Tuesday. If not... maybe Chinese isn't such a bad idea. Unfortunately, my boyfriend will be 2000 miles away at that point...
Re:Equivocation (Score:1)
Fair enough.
It's official: your family situation is a slippery mire, and it sounds as if you're smack dab middle. Ultimately though, I'd think that the bonds of family should outweigh personal moral feeling, at least from the point of view that, if he's ever going to return to a "healthy/normal/straight" mindset, the support of his family will be the best thing for it. (Beware, though, the over-turkey "so when are you getting straight" argument.)
Hopefully I'll just get everything worked out. Pray for me if you think to, and you happen to pray.
You'll definitely be in my thoughts and well wishes. Good luck.
Re:Equivocation (Score:2)
this is exactly what i was thinking.
(now i speak to liora...) if there is no discussion, you are only left with prayer for your father and step-mother to learn tolerance. as it has been pointed out elsewhere in the conversation, that will probably be ineffective without a "want to change" attitude.
it sounds like you have found a way to take the moral high ground with your brother, but still love him and enjoy his company. that's easier because he is a sibling and has no present or past authority the same way that a father does. to resolve this issue and be able to have your brother included in family activities, you may have to take a moral high ground position with your father. you don't have to be nasty, but let him know where he could change. challenge your father and step mother's attitude. it doesn't have to be confrontational, but it is the only way to encourage a change. it is the loving thing to do for your brother and your father to try to enable them to love each other.
now, i do not claim to know what the best way to talk about this would be. it sounds like your father doesn't even want to talk about your brother. that doesn't make it easier. i get the impression that he and his wife would rather brush the whole thing aside and pretend it doesn't exist. if you can live with that, fine. if you can't, things won't change unless someone questions the status quo.
this is all a very uncomfortable situation, so you may want to think it through before following my advice. if you decide to approach your dad, it should be done lightly so feelings he has stored up about your brother don't get unleashed on you.
thanksgiving may be too close to resolve this. christmas might be too close, but you have a better chance of getting a good strategy together.
finally, don't take anything i say as an absolute guide. you know your family much better than i do. i do not want to be the one who destroys the ties that are left in your family. my hope is that there is something in what i said that will help you find a way for yourself.
Re:Equivocation (Score:2)
Re:Equivocation (Score:1)
Ditto. Feel free to take this as my solemn oath that I'm not ever attacking Liora, even if I'm dubious about something she's said.
Thank you. I needed that. Back atcha, by the by: I do think you're a very likeable, stand up person.
I did not see any known trolls. (Score:1)
For what it's worth, I'm not tolerant. (Score:1)
If I believe that I should help you with your computer problems, & then I do help you, then we can see that my beliefs had a *good* strong influence on my behaviour.
If I believe that I should kill Christians, because they are "evil", & then I do kill them off, then we can see that my beliefs had a *bad* strong influence on my behaviour.
Technically, it would be more accurate to say, "I'll let you believe what you want, but I insist on controlling your behaviour.". After all, I'm not going to go around asking people what they believe, & then beat them with a stick until they agree with me. It's just that often times, what a person believes is so closely tied to their actions, that it is unseperable.
Regarding the ability to read, I don't think that many people do have the ability to read anymore. I find it a little frightening. I equate it to a man falling in a pit and destroying any means of escape. When asked why he would do that, he would respond, "Why not?". There's just no understanding of what's practical.
Flame on!
What bugged me about the crack analogy... (Score:3, Interesting)
I was also bothered by the sexualization of homosexual people. It seems that being gay is automatically equated having anal sex with men, but that is an unfair statement. It is entirely possible to be gay without having sex. I assure you, there are plenty of people who know that they are heterosexual, yet have never had sex. Is it the quality of being gay or the idea of having sex with a person of the same gender of which you disapprove? While the Bible explicitly forbids men from having sex with men, I'm not sure that it addresses mere attraction to men or lack of attraction to women. If we take "sex with men" to be what you believe is sinful, the tone of your JE seemed to equate being homosexual with having sex with men.
The problem is that "being gay" is not an action. It's a quality of the person. You said that you do not approve of him being gay, just as you would not approve of somebody being in the KKK; you would prefer that they go to their KKK meetings and be gay somewhere other than around you. But what is "being gay"? It's not something that you can turn off and on. It's not a discrete action like getting high on crack. "Being gay" is not the same as "having sex with another man."
So, your brother went to a GLBT event. In the unlikely event that it was a gay orgy, then he should not have told you, because you don't want knowlege of his sexual behavior of which you disapprove. However, it is more likely that it was more of a support-type event. People who are marginalized by society due to conditions beyond their control need as more support as they can get.
I guess this all stems from whether or not "being gay" is a choice.
As for your parents, what does "acting like a freak" around your sister mean? It's not like he and his partner are going to pop a gay porn video into the VCR at your parents house. Being gay shouldn't change the fact that it's his little sister, and people just aren't sexual around their siblings. If they are, the problem isn't being gay.
Re:What bugged me about the crack analogy... (Score:2)
Here is why I think this. I actually think that people are able to have lustful feelings for just about any other person given the right circumstances. I was really close to a girl when I was in high school, and while I never dated her or anything like that, I did kiss her once. But I'm a firm heterosexual by all accounts. So what happened?
I think that there is not a hetero/bi/homo-sexual set of categories. There is probably a spectrum, and people move along that spectrum at different times in their lives. With the girl from high school, here's what happened. One day, I noticed she was really pretty. Another day I realized that I liked hanging out with her more than I liked hanging out with anyone else. Another day still, I realized that she had realized those same things about me. Then (and here is where I messed up) I thought about her in a sexual way. I let my brain produce phenylethylamines, and when it did this, I did nothing to discourage it. I let myself move along the spectrum to what I consider the not-so-good part of the spectrum. Then, when I kissed her, I moved to the very, very, bad part of the spectrum.
People who are afraid of GLBT type issues are likely to vehemently argue with me about the sexuality spectrum. That's ok. I just think that given circumstances, a human can find just about any other human attractive. But the question after that is "what do they do with that thought?" If I file it into the back of my head and say "wow, that girl must have a lot of guys chasing her," I have done the correct thing. If I turn around and lust after her, I have done the wrong thing.
This is not to say that I still struggle with this. I don't, in fact, I've never thought about a girl that way again, or even started to. I think that God gave me that one experience so I could sympathize with and help people. Help people that are afraid of homosexuals not be afraid. Help people that are homosexuals that want to change, change. There is good news in that I believe that people can be healed, even from stuff like that if they want to be. God can do anything.
I know a lot of people who struggle with GLBT-type issues. And I know a lot of people who would tell me that's just how they are, they are struggling with nothing. But here's what I know: I know that I can't think of a single one of them that didn't at some point feel attracted to a member of the opposite sex. That includes my brother. They must have changed at some point. Just like when I was attracted to that girl, I changed, for like a week or something, but still, I changed. In the cases where they want to change back, I see people that either have changed back, or are in the process of it. In the places where they are happy where they are, they are sitting pretty right where they are.
Is it hard to change? Yes. Is it worth it? For the people I've seen, yes. How hard is it? Actually a lot easier than the initial change that people had when they first allowed themselves to change their feelings. Does that mean that I think that every single G, L, B, or T person could be healed by God to not be that way? Yes. Does that mean that I would ever tell a person that? No, unless I were discipling them or something, or was really close to them. Why? Because a Christian is never "speaking the truth in love" in a situation where the person isn't going to hear it. If your statement is going to fall on deaf ears, and you know it, you had best just shut up because it is not the right time. God has the right time planned, maybe for you, maybe for someone else, but I don't get to just go around condemning people. And right now, my brother does not want to hear me about it, so I am not talking. I have merely told him I disagree, but I don't just hope, I expect that we will still be great friends and love each other anyway.
I don't know what it is that my parents are so worried about. All I know is that my brother expressed some trends that I was very concerned about, with regard to their never having let him be alone with her, or take her anywhere, or anything like that. I just don't know. The unfortunate thing is that she is four, and so he is missing out on his little sister growing up, partly b/c he doesn't get much time with her when he does see her, and partly because he just doesn't come home much due to the rift between him and my parents.
Re:What bugged me about the crack analogy... (Score:2)
Just curious here... what is it that puts kissing her at the bad end of the spectrum? I mean in and of itself. If you can ignore for a second what the Bible says, what about the act itself is wrong? I guess what I'm trying to get at is if the Bible didn't explicitly proscribe it, would you still feel it was bad?
For the record, like you, I think that everyone can find people of both sexes attractive. In fact, I'd go further and say that everyone is born bisexual. But true 50/50 bisexuals are very rare. Most lie somewhere along the spectrum closer to one end than the other. I'm sufficiently close to the hetrosexual end, that to all intents and purposes, I can be described as such. Yet I'm very definitely not at the extreme end, and to be honest, I doubt anyone is a "pure" hetrosexual (or homosexual for that matter).
I think there's some truth to that (Score:2)
In response to Liora: I'm really not sure to what extent people can "allow" or "disallow" hormones to be produced. I always thought that "sinning" was about actions, not thoughts. I was under the impression that not sinning was a result of being able to not act upon certain urges, not to supress the urge itself, but I was brought up in a different brand of Christianity.
Re:I think there's some truth to that (Score:2)
That is the thing that a log of people don't understand about Christianity, that is, what it really is as culminated in the persona of Jesus and was lived out by the disciples. But the other thing is, it's not about suppressing urges themselves, it is about making yourself vulnerable to what God wants for you and letting him change you.
For a long time after becoming a Christian, I drank too much. Way too much. But recently (in the last three months or so) all desire to get smashed has sort of dissipated. I didn't have to go to AA, or quit drinking entirely, I just had to first pray that God would change my mind about my behavior, and then after I wanted to drink less, change my behavior. The praying about really actually wanting to drink less took a long time. (I mean, to where I really really wanted to drink less, not where I just sort of wanted to drink less, or wanted to drink less during those moments where the room was spinning, or the next day when I couldn't see straight or eat.) After that was done though, and that happened in about June, God just sort of easily changed my behavior. Now drinking isn't a priority for me. I am not sitting around thinking about when I'm going to have my next beer. I was before.
I think that applies similiarly, with regard to sexual sin. I could talk about how God changed me with regard to such stuffs, and I think the process is actually probably very similiar, but I don't think it is really appropriate in this forum. Let's just say that in the relationship I am in now I am able to look at things through child-like eyes again and I am not even thinking about it. That doesn't mean I won't ever think about it, it just means I'm not thinking about it now.
Sermon on the Mount! Woohoo! (Score:1)
>>not thoughts. I was under the impression that not
>>sinning was a result of being able to not act upon
>>certain urges, not to supress the urge itself, but
>>I was brought up in a different brand of
>>Christianity.
>Well, my dear, that is what a lot of people think
>Christianity is about, but the Bible paints a
>completely different picture. If you want someone
>dead, you have committed the sin of murdering
>them, even if you haven't done it. If you lust
>after a person, you have slept with them in your
>head, well, sort of. The Bible says that,
>although I don't have time to look it up, but I
>bet glh or TechnoLust can quote those passages
>off the top of their heads.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28)
That's from The Sermon on the Mount, covered in Matthew 5-7, which basically records a sermon Jesus himself gave one time when he had huge crowd of people swarming around him, coming to hear what he had to say (and to have him heal those who were diseased/sick/suffering
Did you see South Park last night? (Score:1)
This week on South Park:
The Death Camp of Tolerance
South Park, yes, offensive as it is, has its good points. Basically, this week's episode says that tolerance only goes so far. You tolerate a screaming child on an airplane. That doesn't mean it doesn't piss you off, or that it doesn't make you uncomfortable.
The kids and families made a visit to the Museum of Tolerance, learned about stereotypes, etc. They came out and some guy was smoking outside, sitting on the edge of the fountain, and the parents and docent yelled at him until he left.
I won't go into the particulars of the whole episode... but I thought it was ironic that they were talking about how tolerance != acceptance, and that trying to accept everything is stupid, then this JE...
Re:Did you see South Park last night? (Score:2)
Re:Did you see South Park last night? (Score:1)
Personally, I think SP has a lot of interesting things to say. Some people can't see past the shocking things that go on, and the profanity to see that it's more than just "cheap animation" and profanity. (I think it's sick that they use a 3-d program just to get the construction paper shadows. Cool, but it just seems wrong.) While I don't agree with all of the things represented in the show, I try to watch with an open mind and a HUGE pinch of salt.
I laugh my ass off, though. :)
Re:Did you see South Park last night? (Score:2)
The idea of encouraging everyone to be tolerant has transformed into the idea that we must accept everyone's choices...if you think something is wrong, there's no way you're ever going to accept it. That doesn't mean you can't tolerate things.
I liken it to opinions on the death penalty (or any other touchy subject for that matter). Being against the death penalty, I really can't ever *accept* otherwise -- but that doesn't mean I can't associate with those who are pro-death penalty. When the topic comes up, we both just acknowledge that we think differently, neither of us is changing, and move on...
old testament versus new testament (Score:2, Informative)
I've seen families torn apart by this issue, and every time I see it, it makes me sad. It is really good of you to try and keep your family together. I'd like to share a couple unrelated items before I get to the meat of the matter. If he is religious, please don't make him feel like he has lost God, too.
1) One of my college jobs was working daycare at the campus daycare center for kids. We had PhD.s teaching kids from 2-9 years old. We also had a 6-year old boy who identified as female -- he wasn't gay, he was just very girly. He wanted to wear dresses, acted feminine, and seemed to *think* feminine (non-aggressive, liked playing family-oriented make-believe). His parents were distressed (duh!), and had him in counseling (as well as going to counseling themselves). Our instructions were to just ignore his deviance. We were to avoid drawing attention to it so as not to reward him. He didn't change. I heard that the counseling advice to the parents were to learn to accept it because their child was unlikely to be capable of change.
2) I am left-handed. I'm happy I grew up in a time and place where no one tied my left-hand down to prevent me from using it. If I try really hard, I can get some things done with my right hand, but it is unnatural for me to do so. When I try to be right-handed, it is incredibly easy for me to *keep* myself from doing it for very long. In fact, it'd be hard for me to STAY right-handed. To all you right-handed folks out there: try being left-handed for a week. All you ambidextrous folks can skip this -- we know some people can go both ways.
There are gay people who've ruined their lives trying to be straight. There are gay people who've committed suicide because they couldn't stand their inability to stop desiring members of their own sex. I've heard gay people say things like, "Choice? Do you think I'd *choose* to subject myself to this hatred, ridicule and exclusion?" After seeing the heartache, pain, and tid bits of scientific study displaying differences in brain chemistry, I've come to believe that it really is not a choice for most. I am sure that many people *could* sleep with a member of whichever sex they found unappealing, but if the drive isn't there, why would you?
Suggestions: Maybe seeing how other families have dealt with the issue (either successfully or badly) will give you ideas. The documentary Family Fundamentals [imdb.com] is supposed to tour and/or be on cable at some point (I saw it in a festival this summer). It isn't as emotional as some films I've seen (such as the Jewish-themed Trembling Before G-d [imdb.com]) but it covers some of the issues people have, and ways that things can work or fail.
This is gonna sound stupid to some people, but... you can always ask: What would Jesus do? If Jesus encounters someone who is gay, is he going to shout him down, throw rocks*, or love that individual as a person? *John 8:7 & John 8:11 [searchgodsword.org]. Jesus would not have us sin, but still does not condemn the sinner. If God designs a person's brain chemistry to force them to be attracted to members of the same sex, I really doubt that Jesus is going to get mad that they are following God's design.
On tolerance, and intolerance of those who are intolerant. Here's how it works for me: I believe everyone the right to protect themselves and others from harm (theft, verbal abuse, etc.). If no one is being harmed, there is no justification for name-calling. If someone already *is* name calling, then yeah, they are fair game for being told off by anyone who considers the instigator's name calling to be harmful. Ideally, whomever is trying to stop a bad behavior should do so in the least damaging way possible. Luke 6:27-45 [searchgodsword.org]
Re:old testament versus new testament (Score:2)
I know that Jesus can heal anything. I know that Jesus still heals people today when we pray for them. When I say heal, I mostly mean help b/c while sure, he can heal people of physical ailments, he can also help people out of difficult situations and help people have right minds and right hearts.
That said, I don't think that God designs a homosexual's brain chemistry to be attracted to people of the same sex. The best theory I have about it is that the brain is a physical interface to a spiritual reality. The Bible describes a spiritual war we are in the middle of, and I am inclined to think that if someone had prayed for that little boy you described when he was very little (when people grow up it complicates things a bit, but I don't want to go into all that right now), and not just the pansy "Thy will be done," sort of praying (although that has been known to be effective too, I suppose), that little boy would have grown up very differently. I think that homosexuals are under spiritual attack, on a near constant basis.
Finally, sometimes Jesus ignored people. There is a guy in Acts with club feet who is healed by some disciples who Jesus must have walked past hundreds of times if the account of where he had sat every single day is accurate. Why didn't Jesus heal him when he had the chance? Well... I don't know. Maybe it wasn't the right time. Maybe the disciples had to be the ones to heal that guy. Those disciples were paying attention to what God was doing, and God was saying "here and now," about healing that guy. But truthfully, I still want to think that if Jesus encountered a homosexual, he would heal them.
Amen to what memfree said (Score:2)
Liora, I used to believe what you do about everybody being fundamentally bi (I guess I'ld put myself about ninety-five to five) and assume that people who claimed that they were entirely het or gay were just repressed or lying. At this point in my life I've gotten enough blank stares, clueless comments, and other signs of machinery just not being there to no longer hold this true. And, oh by the way, ahve never found compelling scientific data to back up my initial assumption.
You're bi. Congrats. For now at least, that's the handiest way to be. Especially for women. But that isn't logically valid proof that everybody is. If I were to go around claiming that everybody had every trait I had *because* I had it, I wouldn't get very far.
Try to take your statement about "I am bi, thereby everybody is bi" and express it in any rigorous way that any logic professor on earth (including a Jesuit) wouldn't just laugh at. One datum isn't proof. It isn't even a significant amount of information. You want to justify a belief that everybody is bi? Show me information on thousands or hundreds of thousands of people.
Until then you're just dressing up an anecdote in fancy language.
Rustin
Funny you should ask . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
While I seriously don't want to dissuade you from actually reading the book (which I would say doggone near qualifies as a case of RTFM) the gist is:
-Gay members of families frequently feel that they are being accepted, at best, on provisional status, and, at that, as second class citizens.
-Further, they are discouraged from ever allowing this huge and crucial part of their life to be admitted in front of people they love. Nobody want to be treated like a leper or a criminal.
-In reaction, there is a sometimes counterproductive tendency to want to take every possible opportunity to mention such things in the desperate desire to JUST ONCE provoke an acknowledgement of who they are. To be treated with respect. To just once not be expected to act like a humble, unworthy mendicant to get their own parents to condescend, for now, unless they don't feel like it, to treat them like family members.
If you want to help him then you must understand more. To understand more, look into his world a bit. Read Rubyfruit Jungle. Spend some time thinking about the fact that he lives in a world where AIDS is going up *again* (yes, among middle-class white boys who don't do drugs) and there still is nothing even resembling a cure. Go to a local GLTG group and ask their advice. Even better, if there is one near you, go to A Different Light [adlbooks.com]. They'll have suggestions and probably some personal perspective to give.
From my admittedly basically het position, I'ld say that being gay today is like being Jewish in the eighteen-hundreds. Constant little snubs. Periodic reports of beating and even murders. Living mostly "among your own kind" simply because they are the only ones who understand and are engaging in the same coping mechanisms. And all the while having mainstream society saying "Oh, we're all better now. We don't persecute you anymore. That's just a few freaks on the margins of society". A bitter comfort when you hear of another friend beaten, another job lost, another person who can't see their lover of twenty years in the hospital because only "family" is allowed in.
Try to understand that. Try as hard as you can. If you love him as you say you do then you will see the value in this. Even if he were a crack addict (which, yes, I too consider a deeply offensive comparison) you would still best reach him by learning the specifics and nature of his addiction. Maybe when you can speak for him your family will listen a bit more.
Frankly, as for where I stand, when you describe somebody as a freak, you have no right whatsoever to be surprised when people take that amiss. Your language was derogatory and inciting. Yes, you love your brother and have not cut him entirely off. This is certainly a big step. But when you say that you consider a key part of who he is to be a "lifestyle", then don't be surprised when the floodgates open.
We're techies here. At least most of us. We value data. The data no longer even comes close to supporting the treatment of sexuality as a "lifestyle" or a crime.
Personally I'm pretty glad that Von Steuben was around to make sense of our troops at Valley Forge. I'm grateful that Decatur chose to serve in a navy that would have thrown him out if they hadn't needed him so badly. I'm happy to be living in a world where Turing was able to lay down a third of the founding principles of the profession so many of us work in. I'm not so happy that homophobic "professionals" drove him to suicide with electroshock and drugs because, after all, it was only a "lifestyle" and he could change any time he really wanted to.
The centuries are filled with the self-loathing of gay people and their desperate attempts to be "straight". In no sense has this ever been some blithe or casual thing. Sexuality is deep. Very deep. And as long as you dismiss something so fundamental in language so dismissive and rejecting, people will continue to respond with anger, some of it ill-articulated or ill-considered.
I've come across your posts before, Liora. I've generally liked what I've seen. It would be a shame if I were to add you to my rather short enemies list. None of us need enemies these days. If you sincerely are ready to help your family and your brother find common ground then feel free to email me. You wouldn't be the first slashdotter to send a request for data and references and I'll do what I can to help. But don't expect me or anyone else to treat it like a minor or passing thing. I've spent enough of my life picking up the pieces of homophobia's damage in the past and have little patience for it now.
Rustin
Re:Funny you should ask . . . (Score:2)
I wasn't going to mention it, but as a het like yourself, I would say I know a tad more than you do about their world. I was in drama and madrigals in high school. Most of my best friends were bisexuals. I went to the HS GALES meeting every week (that is a GAy/LESbian support group for high schoolers) because that is where my friends were every week. I wanted to see what their world was like. So, they often came to coven meetings with me (I was Wiccan at the time) and I went to GALES meetings with them, even though they weren't Wiccans and disapproved of Wicca, and I wasn't bisexual, and disapproved of their sexual escapades.
Did you miss the part where I mentioned that I love his boyfriend? Who I ask about, and care about, and want to know how he's doing?
And hey, who's calling my brother a freak?!? Did you mis-read the part where I mentioned that my parents were concerned he would act like a "freak" around my little sister to say "I think he is a freak?" What I meant was that my parents are afraid he will molest my little sister (or something like that, from what he's said), but I didn't want to type that. He's awesome, and I know him, and he would never do something like that. And, I think it was pretty clear that I was concerned that my parents would think a thing like that, for that very reason, my brother is not scary, he's my brother and I love and trust him. Hence, that was one of the questions I had, how do I get my parents to get a clue, which you failed to address, and instead wrote a ridiculous reply.
Personally, I think that I am glad that a lot of GLBT folks are around, expecially my brother, because they are my friends, and while I appreciate the remarks you made about some other famous people, I think it may indicate that you don't actually know any homosexuals to appreciate in person, or can't relate to what I'm talking about. I think that everyone knows that the most productive members of our society are gay males, and while I would love to change that statistic, I can't, because they are working so much harder than me and everyone else. But I'm certainly not going to accept that as proof that their lifestyles are right because if they were, why is it that I know some former homosexual males whom God has healed and are now happily married to females they are absolutely crazy about?
Finally, there is no data that supports whatever the conclusion you are trying to make at the end of your schpeel. First, no one said that homosexuality was a crime (crimes have victims, silly), and second, of course there are people out there that are unhappy when people repress them because of their beliefs. That's not exclusive to homosexuals. Sometimes people that are Christians and think that homosexuality is wrong get flamed in their own journals.
About my brother's participation in a GLBT rally, I don't want to hear about it the same way I don't want to hear about him going to the Democratic Convention, nor does he want to hear how I was walking a district for a GOP candidate. We know where that road leads. We've been down it before. I just want to be friends with him and not argue. That's why I get increasingly irked every time he tries to start a fight. These days I just ignore him until he changes the topic and we can talk about something else. We just don't agree. You sound like you have been brainwashed in the same manner as those that South Park just ridiculed. You, like my parents, need to learn that tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance.
As far as my beliefs go, I don't treat homosexuals any differently than anyone else. According to my Christian beliefs, we're all in the exact same boat... we're all sinners. There are probably sins that I commit on a regular basis that I would say are not sins. Same for them. Big whoop. Same for you. I want to be friends with all of them. We don't have to agree on everything to be friends. Why do you think differently?
Re:Funny you should ask . . . (Score:2)
So, point by point:
You know, it is really funny you should reply like that.... Thanks for writing in my journal.
My pleasure.
Now I am going to consider myself baited and flame you with no remorse,
An entirely appropriate reaction. It was indeed flamebait and I make no claims otherwise.
but you are going to be ok, because I like you, and you should know that regardless of the rhetoric that is about to follow:
Thank you. Noted and appreciated.
I wasn't going to mention it, but as a het like yourself, I would say I know a tad more than you do about their world. [data pulled. relevant but bulky]
Hmmm. A bit off there, I'm afraid. Since, for example, I've had talks in the past three days with: one TS trying to decide what operations come next and can any of them be covered, one very active bi about the porn that she's writing and if she will want help from me on some of the writing, one gay guy worried about job prospects, another bi talking about job discrimination, one gender issue researcher and the surprising gender-specific things she's finding about 1800's New York case law, another gay guy about design stuff (i.e.handbags, etc.), and maybe one or two I missed, I think you may want to reassess *just a tad*. Btw, did I mention that the reason I was reading the Sophie Horowitz stuff was because it was loaned to me by a friend who said that it mirrored very closely her own lesbian experiences here and in SF? Oh, and the few guys I've kissed have certainly not run screaming (though that beard-to-beard thing was a bit disconcerting).
Did you miss the part where I mentioned that I love his boyfriend? Who I ask about, and care about, and want to know how he's doing?
Nope. Good stuff, but not a "free pass" by any means.
And hey, who's calling my brother a freak?!? Did you mis-read the part where I mentioned that my parents were concerned he would act like a "freak" around my little sister to say "I think he is a freak?" What I meant was that my parents are afraid he will molest my little sister [cropped as the point is made]
Point taken. It was incendiary language but evidently your intent was to convey *their* sense of things, not yours. My mistake. I apologize.
how do I get my parents to get a clue, which you failed to address, and instead wrote a ridiculous reply.
I dunno, from my experience dealing with this sort of situation, and again, as I think Ms. Horowitz explains far better then I could, the first step in cutting through the hostility is that somebody on the "respectable" side of the family has to reach out and take the time to understand his world, not just tell him to sit there, shut up about key parts of his life, and pretend that such an arrangement will *ever* stop hurting.
I wasn't writing all that stuff as a random vent. If I want to vent I can always go off and yell at some Windoze people. I wrote it because those facts, those key parts of living gay, are relevant to the question that you asked. For your parents to get a clue, you need to act as intermediary. For you to do that, you need to know what you're talking about. And it's important that this isn't just stats. It's about pain, alienation. All that messy stuff that people try desperately to push under the rug. It's also about sexuality, the great American deniable pasttime.
You asked how to help your family deal with your brother. This, as far as I know, and as I have, frankly some reason to know about, requires understanding. When your family denies key facts of your life, they diminish you. When they diminish you, you fight back. When you fight back, they feel hurt and the whole cycle goes downhill from there. To break the cycle somebody needs to really open their own eyes. Open them as far as they will open and let your brother decide what they see. From what you've said, you're volunteered.
To put my post in Christian language, I was bearing witness. Please go back to the post and see if you can see that that was what was going on.
[paragraph of nice stuff and nasty stuff] But I'm certainly not going to accept that as proof that their lifestyles are right because if they were, why is it that I know some former homosexual males whom God has healed and are now happily married to females they are absolutely crazy about?
If you want us to really get into the debate about the origins and nature of homosexuality, then that's great, but frankly, not tonight. A.)Again, my primary point was to give you a bit of the other side's perspective. and B.) I've gotta be up in the morning. Come back in a few days, do a new JE on the topic. I'll be there, in every sense, with bells on.
My only comment: The word, "lifestyle" about homosexuality is a big honkin' red flag to just about everybody who has been active in gay rights. Don't use it unless you fully intend to offend people. It IS offensive. period.
Finally, there is no data that supports whatever the conclusion you are trying to make at the end of your schpeel.[sic]
Really? What data would I need to provide that you would accept as valid? I've got shelves of stuff behind me right here, right now.
no one said that homosexuality was a crime (crimes have victims, silly), you compared his behavior to using crack. As others have pointed out already in this thread, that has quite a few unpleasant implications.
Sometimes people that are Christians and think that homosexuality is wrong get flamed in their own journals.
Again, I'm not alone is saying that your choices of language were flamebait indeed.
You sound like you have been brainwashed in the same manner as those that South Park just ridiculed. You, like my parents, need to learn that tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance.
Okay, first of all, "brainwashed" is flat out insulting. To repeatedly use language like that and then be surprised that people get pissed is disingeneous, at best. Secondly, as Nyarly pointed out, yes, there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance, but the one without the other is and always will be a stopgap. Hey, why are you surprised? I was one of the most emphatic defenders of Gen X rigor in your post on generations. For cryin' out loud, look at my sig. It's not like I've ever said different.
As far as my beliefs go, I don't treat homosexuals any differently than anyone else.
Yes, you do. You, from the sounds of it, tell them not to discuss anything too "gay". You tell them that you love them but that they're going to rot in Hell. I'm betting that there are any number of other little things like that. I would suggest that you go to several gay people you interact with regularly and ask them if they perceive that you treat them differently.
There are probably sins that I commit on a regular basis that I would say are not sins. Same for them. Big whoop. Same for you. I want to be friends with all of them. We don't have to agree on everything to be friends. Why do you think differently?
Well first of all, I am, to put it mildly, not a Christian (the three covens I've been connected to, for the record, all considered me too intense, but the writer that I'm meeting with about the Green Man next week seems grateful for that depth of commitment). I am not friends with people across certain gaps. Like you, I speak up when people I care about do certain things that I consider wrong. Unlike you, as far as I'm concerned, when the talk starts the clock does too. If in a few years the person doesn't get their act together, I'm gone. Life is short. I have too much to do to waste it on people I can't trust.
So, to me it looks like we've got a few points outstanding. I'm not kidding about the debate on nature versus nurture and its relation to sexuality. Let me get through the next week and I'll be only too glad to take this on for pages and pages and pages.
Also, I'm not kidding about your polling to your gay friends about what they perceive your behavior to be. In fact, I'm more then a little curious. Are you planning to let your brother see this discussion? I would be most curious to see if *he* thinks my comments and suggestions were off-topic or non-sequiturs.
On the language front, look back at other responses. Look at other posts. You're setting off flares and being surprised when the brush catches fire. I think that if we were to take out the cavalierly inciting, this whole thing would go a a lot better. On a related note, yes, I did jump the gun on a few things but again, it's not like my reaction was so anomalous.
And one last time, don't try to figure this stuff out here on
All of that having been said, if you take nothing away from all this but one thing, please let it be that, to me at least, it seems that most likely your brother needs to be listened to. On his terms entirely. That is the best and most important step to figuring out how to build a way that he can reintegrate into the family as a whole. It sounds like your stepmother is no help at all here and like both of them are in avoidance mode. Don't underestimate your brother's voice. Don't dismiss the importance of your hearing it.
So after all of that, be well, may all of you be happy, and I very much hope that this comes to a happy conclusion,
Rustin
Re:Funny you should ask . . . (Score:2)
I would never tell anyone, no matter how mad I was at them, even as a hurled expletive, that they were going to rot in hell. Yeah, sure, I sort of believe in heaven and hell, but I don't spend much time thinking about it because I'm trying to be like Jesus and he didn't spend much time thinking about it. He said a lot of things about what we're supposed to do and how we're supposed to act, but as far as I can figure, off the top of my head, he didn't say anything about condemning people or even really mention hell per se. Why else do all the cessationists have so much ammo?
People that spend their time trying to scare people into becoming Christians by spouting hellfire and brimstone at them don't get it at all, and I'm not really sure that they're Christians. I don't get to make that choice, thank goodness, but I definitely think their message is not consistent with what we're really supposed to be preaching and doing. I'm sorry that you have seen Christians like that. I'm sure it has done much to taint your understanding of Christianity and probably has lead to the misconception you would have about me treating people differently because they believe differently.
Jesus said that we were supposed to go around healing the sick, feeding the poor, freeing the oppressed, helping the confused, and explaining the Good News about the Kingdom. (The Good News about the Kingdom being that the Kingdom of God has invaded earth and now people are able to be healed, fed, freed, helped and informed thanks to the grace of God.) We are supposed to be a burning light of goodness out in the world, that the world would know us by our fruit.
Well I don't think that the hellfire sort of fruit is very palatable. What is palatable is letting a woman cry on your shoulder when her girlfriend or boyfriend has broken up with her, or looking all over for a job for someone without one, or letting people rent rooms from you at your house for next to nothing because you want them to have a chance to go to school, or being a virtual taxi for a family without a car and taking them to pick up food at food pantries. At least that's my sort of fruit.
A long time ago someone told me that a lesbian who thought her actions were just fine wanted to become a member of our church. One person in charge told me that they were lucky they didn't have to make a decision because she changed her mind. I proceeded to flame the whole lot of them in style. Holy Bejesus! Those churchleaders are the ones who taught me how to act, and it was my turn to point out some planks in their eyes. So I did. Of course! They should have welcomed that woman with open arms! We welcome everyone else to our church, no matter how they differ slightly from us in belief, because we know that sooner or later the Holy Spirit will show up and that person will be healed, or set straight, or whatever, and if they aren't, maybe they weren't so wrong in the first place, and that person needs to teach us something. See, I have faith in the Holy Spirit, the same one in each of us, that it will lead us to the right conclusions, corporately.
Well, guess what happened. That same Holy Spirit showed up on the spot and convicted the leader I was talking to of his blindness. Of course it did. That's what was supposed to happen. I still can't believe that I opened fire like that, it was so out of character to spout off like that. Well, I can say that the HS led me to do it, because the time was right, and that guy repented, and I hope he went back and did the same to all of the other people that were so silly.
And that is the number one reason why I don't ever tell my brother he is sinning. It's not my job. I want him to become a Christian. Then, if what he's doing is wrong, the HS will convict him all by itself, I don't have to say anything. In the meantime, I will look forward to spending Christmas with him and his boyfriend, and answer honestly about what I think about that if asked, and just ask that he not mention some certain things, the same way that I will not mention some certain things to him.
I don't want my roommate to tell me about how she is sleeping with her boyfriend. I don't want my brother to tell me how he is sleeping with his boyfriend. I don't believe in premarital sex period. That's all there is to it. But either of them can tell me about how their boyfriends cooked them dinner last Saturday night because as people, I interact with them as people. It just makes sense. How am I gonna be a shining light if I'm never around people, loving them, to shine?
I am just pretty convinced that the major differences here between me and other people that you may have seen waving the Christian banner convinced that homosexuality is wrong is that I take Jesus literally when he says to love my neighbor as myself. That is tied for most important commandment. I also take Jesus literally when he said follow me. Jesus was never one to throw stones or point fingers at people. He let the adulterous woman live; he used Samaritans as the good guys (as far as comparisons go, Samaritans == GLBT's is a pretty good one insofar as Strict Jews == Homophobic Christians, do the research to see what I mean).
You know, I am very glad you have encountered me on the net, but I really hope you at some point encounter some real Christians in person. Be forwarned though... you might not know they are Christians until it is too late. And I hope no one ever tries to proselytize in your presence again, lest everything I've tried to reiterate about what Christians are really supposed to believe get as misplaced in your head as the obligatory missing sock at the laundrymat.
Re:Loving as God commands (Score:2)
And yes, I have indeed encountered deeply nasty variations on "you will rot in Hell" quite a few times, up close and personal. (The Jews for Jesus crowd are my favorites to the point that I've wondered what some of them might taste like well roasted with a nice barbeque sauce.) And yes, I've read enough of the New Testament (cover to cover actually, but remember appallingly little of it) to find that sort of thing pretty low even above and beyond the aspect of judging you have talked about.
I apologize for prejudging and am glad to have been wrong.
Frankly, I have a deep, fundamental, and substantial loathing for all three Semitic religions for reasons both of underlying paradigm (I'm not even going to start on the sexism thing) and my reliably repulsive experiences of dealing with those who have claimed to speak for them. I have no doubt that if the people I had dealt with had been more like you and gmhowell, my feelings would be less vehement and less visceral.
I can't say that this is changing my attitudes about the philisophical underpinnings of the Big Three, but other then our clearly mutually exclusive views coming out of that, it is sounding pretty clear that you are one of the good guys (no gender statement intended).
One last thing, who are the cessationists?
Rustin
Re:Loving as God commands (Score:2)
Among "Christians" there are all kinds of crazy beliefs (I'm using that term sparingly). There are those that say that in the end everyone will go to heaven, those that say that good people will, those that believe in purgatory, those that believe in hell, those that believe that purgatory and hell are the same thing, you just go there for a while and then get to go to heaven, those that believe in eternal damnation for non-Christians, the cessationists, those that believe that heaven and hell are only figurative and there is no such thing as either, etc. As a *real* Christian I have to say that a lot of the above is hogwash, and a lot of other stuff above is completely inconclusive... that is, I don't know for sure, except that I do know that I am following Jesus with all I've got and so I get to go, but I don't really have a clue about anyone else, and I am very hesitant to make statements about things I don't know about.
Oh, one more thing of note... most *real* Christians are not sexist. I'm going to have to say that my boyfriend, shimmin, is decidedly not sexist, and he also has done much to dispell many of my fears that there is some right and proper sort of place for women in society. In short, he thinks women should do whatever God calls them to do, no matter what that is. So if I want to go church-planting some day (which I may), or go get my Masters of Divinity (a notion I'm toying around with) he thinks it is infinitely more important to consult God about it and do what he says than to pay attention to what some other people will think of a female pastor. Fortunately, most of my church and my dad feel that way too, so I've got support.
Comments... (Score:2)
On to what you actually asked about....
Is there anything I should consider here, other than that now is a great time to get all of the MS Suite software for it from the Apple store b/c it is $200.00 off?
Well, I don't really have much advice on the choice to use an Apple. They're really nice computers, and can do just about everything a PC can, especially in the laptop department as you're not buying a laptop to play games. Games, and the price, are about the only reasons I don't own a Mac myself. As for the decision to get MS Suite, I would suggest you reconsider. Not because I dislike Microsoft or anything, but because there's programs available that do exactly the same thing, that can read/write MS Word documents, and that cost an awful lot less. Sure, you can save $200 on a $600 suite, but you're still spending $400 on something you could get for free.
I'd suggest that you check out OpenOffice.Org [openoffice.org]. It's in Beta for OSX/Darwin, but I think it's stable and quite usable. I'm using OpenOffice.Org myself, and I won't ever go back to MS Office.
Best of luck.
Re:MS Office (Score:2)
Btw, ironically, since I'm on OS 9, I actually run another mail client that was originally done as the crippleware version of a corporate system. The theory of how the client I use was designed was that the home Mac client was so stripped down that *surely* nobody would want to use it. I, of course, being an ASCII kinda guy (FWIW I write most my
So I'm actually not personally on Eudora, just counting on its *not* automatically linking into the VB foolishness that makes all current MS apps so vulnerable.
Oh, and in general, buy as much RAM as you can possibly afford. More RAM *always* good. Only other thing that I always suggest to iBook buyers is a Bihn bag or equivalent. Of course, you could just drop by my site [reedandwright.com] where there are plenty of Mac purchasing suggestions.
Happy days and happy Mac'ing,
Rustin