How can you be both Christian and gay?

[Tyo]

I have seen too many lives messed up by trying to be both Christian and gay. I am not Christian, never have been, although many of my family members are nominally either Presbyterian and Episcopalian. It’s that British Hong Kong heritage. As my Japanese partner says, when the missionaries showed up you knew that the gunboats were not far behind.

In my reading of the Bible (know your enemy) I think that the Old Testament is pretty unambiguous in its condemnation of homosexuality. Later on St Paul wasn’t too crazy about it either, although he didn’t seem to think much of sex period.

I don’t know, just seems to me that being gay and Christian involves some pretty unbelievable contortions in order to work.

[The Count]

1. Christian witches confused me once - but they said: "to each his own"

If there are gay Republicans, why shouldn't there be gay Christians?

[queenbdem87]

2. I'm gay and not a christian....but i don't by that logic....

You say that you cannot be christian and gay because of certain things in the bible. But, there are many statements in the bible that would be impossible to reconcile with christian thought. They key of christianity is to focus on the message of jesus christ, not the old testament or any other ideology. To be a christian you have to believe jesus christ is the son of god and that he died for your sins...and you also have to follow his teachings, which are often in contradiction with many things said in the bible. The problem here is that people get so bogged down in the literature and literally interpreting it word for word that they don't realize the purpose of reading it: doing so throught the lens of a follower of jesus christ.

Once again....not a christian....can't stand religion myself.

[Tyo]

9. I don't buy that.

Interesting that two "non-religious" people are talking about this though.

Christian theologians have spent centuries trying to reconcile the conflicting instructions and teachings in the Bible and while they are a long way from consensus they do seem to agree that Christians have to take the Bible as a whole and that homosexuality is not on the board. Far be it from us to try to second guess the experts here.

Also you seem to be saying that anyone who believes in and tries to interpret and follow the teachings of Christ in his or her own way is a Christian. We as outsiders don't know that that is a valid approach. Anyway, my concern is with people who try to reconcile their gayness with their belief in the teachings of an/the established church, although my sympathy is with the free spirits who try to connect directly with god.

[closeupready]

12. I'm Christian and gay. No internal conflicts here.

Who is this "us" you refer to? I'm not part of us. I am me. And frankly, I find it sad that you seem to distrust what your own mind tells you.

Look at the scandals these Christian theologians have been involved in. How can you trust such people to be truthful????????? Very sad.

And further, are you saying that if you are not a Christian theologian, your opinion doesn't matter? That's crazy.

[Selatius]

3. Well, if you're claiming to be Christian, you follow what Christ taught.

As far as others who came after him like St. Paul, fuck him. Pauline Christian teachings should be rejected and condemned.

Might I suggest Thomas Jefferson's Jefferson Bible? Of course, he wasn't a Christian; he was a Deist like some of his fellow colleagues George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Paine, et al.

[SaveElmer]

4. Actually the Old Testament is pretty ambivelent about Homosexuality...

A term by the way that was not even known then...

If you look at the passages calling homosexual behavior an "abomination," it also calls growing the incorrect crops together an abomination, along with a list of offenses even the most right wing of fundies do not subscribe to. They simpley cherry pick what they can use to maintain their bigotry.

Jesus doesn't mention it at all!!!

[Rabrrrrrr]

5. I have a lot of gay friends who are ordained Christian clergy.

I don't think they'd buy your premise of "unbelievable contortions".

:eyes:

For fuck's sake, can't we just let religious people be religious without the assholery, and let atheists be atheists without the assholery?

People have the right to choose and follow whatever faith or non-faith they wish, and should be able to do so without harassment.

[Pab Sungenis]

6. I am gay. I am Christian.

They are not incompatible at all.

God sent Christ to Earth to redeem the sins of ALL mankind. Christ sent his disciples out into the world to preach the Good News to ALL people everywhere. Christ loves each and every one of us, and if we follow his teachings and accept him as our Savior, we will all be forgiven.

For those who throw Leviticus at us, Christ never one preached about homosexuals, in any terms. Actually, he threw out the archaic purity codes of the Law of Moses (which is where the teachings against homosexuality are) in the teachings recorded in Matthew 15:10-20:

He summoned the multitude, and said to them, "Hear, and understand. That which enters into the mouth doesn't defile the man; but that which proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man."

Then the disciples came, and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended, when they heard this saying?"

But he answered, "Every plant which my heavenly Father didn't plant will be uprooted. Leave them alone. They are blind guides of the blind. If the blind guide the blind, both will fall into a pit."

Peter answered him, "Explain the parable to us."

So Jesus said, "Do you also still not understand?

Don't you understand that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the belly, and then out of the body?

But the things which proceed out of the mouth come out of the heart, and they defile the man.

For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual sins, thefts, false testimony, and blasphemies.

These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands doesn't defile the man."

Christ calls us to a higher standard, a deeper understanding. He impresses upon us the MEANING that was behind the Law, and gives us the two new Commandments: love your enemies, and love each other as He loved us.

[Warpy]

7. Some of the better denominations out there

are welcoming: Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, Unitarian, Quaker, but it varies widely from congregation to congregation.

Some gay Christians manage to find open churches. Others remain mired in fundydom, forced to keep silent, pretend they're someone they're not, and end up hating themselves for being who they were always meant to be.

Remember, there's a lot of stupid stuff written by sex phobic priests who are none too sure of their own sexuality. Wise people know that Jesus made no such pronouncements and defended adultresses, the lowest form of life back then.

Paul's rantings against gays and women were only included in the bible because they served power.

[DuaneBidoux]

78. Unitarians do not vary by congregation. Absolute equality is the case everywhere.

[Democrats_win]

8. A politically incorrect question? "christians" lost their religion.

We see how gays are more accepted now than ever before so it may not be politically correct to imply that gays can't be Christian. Another approach would be to see that gays are struggling for acceptance in Christianity just as Christianity once struggled for acceptance in the Roman empire. In fact today's Christian hatred of gays drives today's gladiators to harm our brothers and sisters just as the Romans did toward Christians.

Rather than being astonished by gays being Christian we should be truly astonished that a religion that worships a God, who is love, should show so much hate. That is truly astonishing and demonstrates how far the human "acorn" has fallen from the tree. That's why I say "christians" lost their religion.

[KT2000]

10. How can you be a Christian if

you do not kill a man who has touched the bed of a menstruating woman. That is in the Bible too.

[UncleSepp]

37. Really? What passage is that?

I'd be interested to see that.

[Liberal Jesus Freak]

11. Of course you can be a christian and gay.

However, you cannot be a bigoted, fundamentalist, narrow-minded pew-sitter.

[closeupready]

13. What passages in the Old Testament are you referring to?

There are like, what, a grand total of 4 passages which unequivocally refer to homosexual behavior? :eyes: And it is disputed precisely how these passages should be translated accurately. And Jesus said nothing about homosexuality?

Paul was not divine, and therefore, sinned and made mistakes. I feel his views on homosexuality were, at best, erroneous.

[LeftCoast]

14. I'm not sure which passages in the O.T. you're talking about, but

if they're the ones I'm thinking of, they're right there with prohibitions against eating shellfish and wearing clothing of mixed fibers. The 10 Commandments also say nothing about this. It's all just moral hypocrisy as far as I'm concerned.

:shrug:

I'm not a Christian, but I respect the beliefs of others as long as they're not hypocritical. I think the non-hypocritical Christians have a lot of work to do in reclaiming their religion, but that ain't my fight. :)

[dsc]

15. Some responses

The Old Testement is just that, old. We don't follow old Testement law because we aren't Jewish. But it should be noted that the only unambiguious Old Testement text in that regard is in Leviticus along with a bunch of other stuff that is known to be outmoded. The Sodom story has to do with treating guests well, not being gay. Isaiah makes that very clear in his book later on.

As to the New Testement, you are left with the Pauline texts. The exact practices he was referring to are not known for sure. In addition both Acts and Luke have pro gay texts within them. Jesus healed a man's lover and Acts has a story about a blessed Eunich.

[Tyo]

19. People have made some good points here, but...

If a believer accepts that the decisions regarding which writings to include in the Bible and which to exclude were divinely inspired then it would seem that Leviticus, for example, is in there for a divine reason. I mean if the entire collection was inspired by God I don’t see how one can dismiss parts of it as not applicable or even really separate the Old Testament from the New Testament.

Seems like both Fundies and liberal Christians engage in the cafeteria approach to the Bible in that they focus on the parts that support their particular beliefs. Obviously I like what the liberals pull out of it but the fact remains that they seem to be ignoring the inconvenient parts relating to, in this instance, gays (the Sodom story aside) and it troubles me that this should have to be the case.

[William769]

21. God did not write the Bible as you stated, Humans did.

And speaking of the context of Religion we all know that no man or woman was perfect. Not even Jesus.

[Tyo]

22. I didn't say that God wrote it

I said that the texts were divinely inspired, not divinely dictated, and chosen with divine guidance. That, at least, is what I've always been taught. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.

[dsc]

31. The new testament specificly states the old testament is inoperative

One Jesus came he fulfilled the law (Leviticus) and thus we don't have to obey it anymore. You have a stronger case when it comes to the writings of Paul but I still feel we have to use both the text and context to interpret the Bible.

[Tyo]

34. Well that's a positive thing, in my opinion.

:-) But why do people even bother with it then? Why should it be considered anything other than a sort of background source or history reference for a Bible which should properly be (in my opinion) comprised only of the books of the New Testament? I'm learning quite a bit here.

[dsc]

35. The old testament has much good in it

Isaiah, Song of Solomon, Exodus, and Psalms are all books that offer great stories that inform both our history and our sense of social justice. Esther is also an important book in light of the Holocost.

[Unvanguard]

52. Because, according to most views, it does apply to Christians.

Just not in its entirety.

And, according to Christianity, all of it is God's word anyway, even if it has been fulfilled.

[Unvanguard]

51. So what if it's old?

Was it okay (obligatory, in fact) to execute people for same-sex intercourse before Jesus came?

[William769]

16. I happen to be Christian and Gay.

Show me where Jesus condemned anyone for being Gay.

BTW, the New Testament is much better reading than the old Testament.

[closeupready]

17. At one time, people would have said being Protestant and Christian was an oxymoron

Now, such a statement is considered nonsense.

Things change, and likewise, conceptions of homosexuality and how it fits into the practice of Christianity are changing. So long ago, being gay and Christian would have seemed fundamentally inconsistent, but that's no longer the case.

Peace.

[va4wilderness]

18. Jesus didn't hang out

with the Pharisees and he probably wouldn't be hanging out with the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell today.....

[hyde]

20. I'm Christian and gay

I know all the contridictions. They are there, and I don't ignore them. I don't pick and choose which scriptures I believe and don't believe. I believe them all. I guess my faith rests in the fact that the Lord knows my heart, and that only He can judge me. When my day comes, and it will, I hope that the life I have led as a whole will be my key to salvation. Jesus is Lord in my house, and according to the Bible accepting that is the first and most important step to salvation, so I feel good about my chances. :)

No one sin is greater than another, so I'm no worse off than these so-called "evangelicals" who cheat on their spouses, lie, preach hate, etc. Homosexuality is the sin du jour because of socially created norms, and not because of some select Bible verses. As has been pointed out here by others you can pull bible verses out that condemn all kinds of things that no one pays attention to. So because some people like to obsess over a few verses and not others I should give up my religion? I don't think so.

I don't know where this idea that being gay is the only sin that excludes a person from salvation came from, and that gays shouldn't even waste their time in church because of it, but I don't buy into that crap for one minute, and neither should anyone else.

[mondo joe]

23. All believers figure out how to rationalize their beliefs. Gays are no different.

If people are screwed up enough to let that mess up their lives, they are not in good shape to begin with.

[Tyo]

24. You know what?

I think you're right. Gays can be Christians because like all Christians they as individuals identify with one of the many definitions of what a Christian is and what a Christian believes. It might be their own criteria or it might be someone else's and it might be positive and affirming or it might be hurtful and negative.

But basically if you believe that you are a Christian then you are one and if pressed to justify your particular brand of the religion there will almost always be stuff in the Bible to support you. Makes sense to me.

[hyde]

26. i wish i could figure out a way to rationalize my beliefs

Like I said above, I believe in all of the scripture in the Bible and I don't pick and choose. At the end of the day I pray that my heart and my intentions are known to Him and that my belief in God is enough. I try to follow in the foot steps of Christ, who said nothing about homosexuality, and that's pretty much the best I can do.

Faith by definition though is about believing in things you can't rationalize and that aren't logical. There is a whole lot I don't know, don't understand, and a whole lot that confuses me about my religion, but I don't just ignore that or find rationializations for it. I just accept it for what it is, my own ignorance pure and simple, and pray for better understanding. I don't know God's plan, but I know that He doesn't want me to seperate myself from Him because of who I'm attracted to, so I just trust in that and tune out everybody who says any different.

[Tyo]

27. So then....

is it fair to say that you believe what you believe because that's what you want to believe? How do you "know" that God doesn't want you to separate yourself from Him just because of who you're attracted to? A lot of mainstream versions of Christianity teach that same-sex attraction or at least acting on it is wrong in God's eyes.

This faith thing seems to me to be simply a matter of finding a comfort zone within the broad spectrum of "Christianities" and then chosing to have faith that God is okay with your decision. I guess I just don't have the God gene because all of this is really hard for me to understand.

[closeupready]

28. I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point.

Not trying to attack you here:

You seem to be implying (conciously or subconciously) that gay Christians are either uniquely or supremely hypocrital. I don't understand why.

I agree that most mainstream Christian sects teach that homosexual behavior is sinful. But there has been a gradual evolution from the Dark Ages when most of them taught that homosexual desires THEMSELVES were sinful, to the situations we have today, which is that "if you are gay, that's not your fault, but you can't act on it." Why did that change happen? Did the Bible change? No. Our understanding of what the Bible says and means has changed. Gays and lesbians are even LESS hypocritical, IMO, than uncircumcised Christian men, because gays can't change but men can get circumcised.

On a side note, I dislike that many bisexual men who struggle to suppress their own homosexual desires seem to hold the view that gay men are under a special, unique or heightened obligation to remain sexually chaste. That's probably because they feel that if THEY can suppress their "sinful" homosexual desires (ignoring the reality that they retain a legitimate release valve for their sexual energy to the extent that they have heterosexual relationships), then gay men should be able to, as well. One size does not fit all, and it's so easy for THEM to strike such a stance when they HAVE an outlet. Anyway, don't get me started.

[Tyo]

29. I know I'm coming off sounding like that,

and that gay Christians are hypocrites would be one easy way of explaining it but it wouldn't be the correct one. Let me work on this some more.

Do agree with you on those bi men who suppress the "sinful" side of their nature. Part of my problem with Christianity and Islam too for that matter is the concept of "sin" as oppposed to simple right and wrong.

[closeupready]

30. No problem -

Organized religion generally sucks because clerics want to control their flocks, even if there is nothing in the religious texts to support these guilt trips they lay out. Peace.

[hyde]

32. No it isn't fair. I believe what I believe because the Bible says so

It says right there in Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." We are all guilty of sin, but God is love. Jesus died for my sins, and God sent His son to do just that because he doesn't want me to be seperated from Him. I don't really believe in Heaven and Hell as it is commonly depicted. I think the Bible describes Hell as basically being seperated from God in death instead of everlasting life with Him.

But I digress...

Like I said before, no one sin is greater than another sin, so why should I turn my back on my religion for my sins while a heterosexual can commit other more socially accepted sins and sit in church on Sunday? I'm not being a hyprocrite or believe what I believe simply because I want to. I'm just going by what I read in the good book. We all sin, and I'm just saying that only God can judge me, so I'm going to put my trust in Him, and pray that he knows my heart.

I could have it completely wrong. Faith exists without certainties. But I resent the notion that I pick and choose what works for me and ignore the rest, and that I hope that's enough.

My only point is that we all sin, that my sins are no worse than anyone else's, and that God loves me just like he loves my straight best friend.

[goddess40]

25. by being an ala carte christian

most people that I know that say they are christians pick and choose the parts of the bible and their religion that work for them and their lives. It doesn't make sense to me because I've never seen any evidence that there was the availability to make these choices, I always get the message that it's an all inclusive package deal.
For example I have a cousin who is Catholic, is a one issue voter but practices birth control. When I asked her how she can ignore the rule about birth control she said "when the church pays for raising my kids I'll follow their rule on birth control."

[UncleSepp]

38. This is interesting to me...

I hear this argument often, about not being a "cafeteria Christian". Oddly, it comes from fundamentalist Christians and from non-Christians who tend to range from mildly anti-Christian to hardcore anti-religion. From the fundamentalists, I can understand it without having to agree with it. From the others, I have trouble understanding how people who do not believe in religious system x will define what it means to be a good x and then apply their definitions to prove that someone else is not a good x.

Which one are you, or are you yourself a Christian?

[goddess40]

39. Grew up in a Catholic house but always an atheist

I just see religion from the outside and I see that it isn't a democracy it's a theocracy. A theocracy means the masses don't get a vote and it's an all or nothing organization. I guess there is some what of a vote - if you choose to ignore or violate a church law it would be a sin.

[UncleSepp]

43. Not all religions are Roman Catholicism as you have experienced it

It sounds like you are still seeing it from the inside of a very conservative Catholic viewpoint. The Roman Catholic church does have a top leader in the Pope who does have the power to decide Church doctrine and policy: that combined with the historically recent doctrine of papal infallibility makes for quite a theocracy. Catholic practice and doctrine does vary from place to place and household to household, and even from priest to priest or bishop to bishop.

(For example: When it was time for my nephew to be baptized, local American clergy wouldn't do it because his parents weren't married. My family was lucky enough to meet an African nun who thought such a practice was shocking, to turn away any baby, since at her orphanage at home, they'd wash, feed, and baptize all the babies that showed up on the previous night. Shortly after that, we met an African archbishop who told us that no way in Rome would anybody turn away a baby from baptism, as they're all God's babies, and besides, who is a Christian to say anything about the value of a child born under mysterious circumstances? An elderly European nun told us that we didn't even need a priest and could do the baptism ourselves, since God would not condemn a child for the lack of a priest to baptize it, and told us the instructions. We wrote them down and went to the chapel of St. Jude, and baptized him ourselves. Who sinned? The priests who wouldn't baptize this child, or the nun who told us to do it ourselves? Us? Depends on who you ask, Catholics all. Each person in the above story reasoned their way to their conclusions, and that, I think, is the important thing.)

Are the variants still good Catholics? Maybe, and maybe not. Are they still welcome in the Catholic church? Usually. The Church doesn't excommunicate people much these days, and we haven't had a schism in a good long time.

Not all religions are like Catholicism, though. Here's a non-Christian example:

http://www.thejewishadvocate.com/this_weeks_issue/news/?content_id=2293

Here, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly has voted on whether to allow gay clergy, and why. Individual congregations can accept the results of the vote or not, depending on their own thought and conscience. This is in keeping with the entire history of how Jewish religious practice and belief has come to be. It starts with the written Torah, and then grows from there through many centuries of debate and discussion and disagreement to get to the forms it has today. The process still goes on, as people continue to wrestle with the divine.

This is a similar Christian example:
http://www.anglicanjournal.com/canada/cogs/002/article/synod-will-vote-on-same-sex-blessings/

In this example, the general synod of the Anglican Church of Canada votes on same-sex blessing ceremonies. The Anglican Church makes decisions on policy and doctrine through its synod, which is a representative assembly.

More religions seem to have this process of evolving their beliefs and practices than do not. In practice, most religions also have stricter adherents and less strict adherents. Laws and sins in a religious belief system usually come with a method of "making up" for the behavior, as it is expected that a person will fall short of whatever is expected of them. The theory of a religion is in its doctrine, but the practical reality is in its people. That practical reality, no matter what the religion, is in general nonabsolute and nonuniform across any given group of adherents.

Oops, had too much fun doing this, gotta go to work :-)

[goddess40]

48. The variance isn't sanctions so it's sinful

"Catholic practice and doctrine does vary from place to place and household to household, and even from priest to priest or bishop to bishop." They can do what they want but if it varies from the Pope's decree it's a sin.

I don't know much about other religious text's but if it's a religion that relies on the Bible as it's base then they aren't supposed to pick and choose what they like to use and what to disregard.

As far as excommunication goes, a person isn't likely to be shown the door if they show up with some green for the offering plate.

[UncleSepp]

53. That's a good expression of a fundamentalist viewpoint

...within the Church particular Churches hold a rightful place; these Churches retain their own traditions, without in any way opposing the primacy of the Chair of Peter, which presides over the whole assembly of charity (11*) and protects legitimate differences, while at the same time assuring that such differences do not hinder unity but rather contribute toward it.
-- Lumen Gentium, 13

I really wanted to say "you're being cynical and narrowly informed", but you deserve a better response than that. I am not going to attempt to address the point of excommunication, other than to say excommunication is not simply "being shown the door". Being made to feel uncomfortable in a Catholic house of worship is not being excommunicated from the mother Church.

Most biblically based Christian faiths pick and choose what they like to use and what they like to disregard: the argument about what still applies of the Old Covenant after Christ came to fulfill it began in the time of Christ and continues to this day. The Catholic church has determined doctrine by councils longer than it has looked to the Bible - the first of the councils of the Church is recorded in the Bible, and Church councils determined what would eventually be the Bible that Roman Catholics know today.

The evolution of Catholic catechism is an ongoing process. Major changes are made at ecumenical councils, and it is those councils which have shaped the Church throughout its history. Some of the most recent major changes in Catholic doctrine occured as a result of Vatican II, an ecumenical council called by Pope John Paul II. These changes were seen by many as radical, such as this one promoting tolerance:

In the second chapter, titled "On the People of God", the Council teaches that God wills to save people not just as individuals but as a people. For this reason God chose the Israelite people to be his own people and established a covenant with it, as a preparation and figure of the covenant ratified in Christ that constitutes the new People of God, which would be one, not according to the flesh, but in the Spirit and which is called the Church of Christ (Lumen Gentium, 9). All human beings are called to belong to the Church. Not all are fully incorporated into the Church, but "the Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christ, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter" (Lumen Gentium, 15) and even with "those who have not yet received the Gospel," among whom Jews and Muslims are explicitly mentioned (Lumen Gentium, 16). The idea of any opening toward Protestantism caused a major controversy among traditionalist Catholic groups.

There was also new catechism with regard to Jews, also promoting tolerance:

"True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ. Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.
- Nostra Ætate"

This too was controversial, even though it affirmed the earlier findings of the Council of Trent in the 16th century. In disregard for the Council of Trent's findings that Jews do not carry the blame for the death of Christ, the "Christ killer" accusation sadly did not disappear from the mouths of the Church's believers. Many seemed to prefer looking to a much earlier Council for their beliefs about Jews, even as far back as the First Council of Nicea in 325:

"… Let us, then, have nothing in common with the Jews, who are our adversaries. … avoiding all contact with that evil way. … who, after having compassed the death of the Lord, being out of their minds, are guided not by sound reason, but by an unrestrained passion, wherever their innate madness carries them. … a people so utterly depraved. … Therefore, this irregularity must be corrected, in order that we may no more have any thing in common with those parricides and the murderers of our Lord. … no single point in common with the perjury of the Jews."

The Council of Nicea is also where this came from, which as a former Catholic you will find familiar:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion--all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.
-- Nicene Creed

You will most likely remember a different form of this. This fundamental statement of Catholic belief also changed over time.

The councils are not frequent, but have been occurring from the earliest times, and are the process by which Catholic doctrine is shaped. Clearly, Catholic doctrine does evolve radically over time, and is not based solely on a literal reading of the Bible. It cannot be, as Catholic doctrine is older than the canonical Bible itself. The Council of Jerusalem is described in Acts and is thought to have occurred between 50 and 63. From the excellent wiki on the subject:

A common interpretation is that the council was convened as the result of the disagreement within the Early Christian community between those, such as the followers of the Pillars of the Church, led by James who believed the church must observe the rules of traditional Judaism, and Paul of Tarsus, who believed there was no such necessity (see also Supersessionism, New Covenant (theology)). However, the "rules of traditional Judaism", the Halakha of Rabbinic Judaism, were still under development at this time, as the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Jesus notes: "Jesus, however, does not appear to have taken into account the fact that the Halakah was at this period just becoming crystallized, and that much variation existed as to its definite form; the disputes of the Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai were occurring about the time of his maturity."

(Interesting that the Jews were also having their councils, evolving their religious practice, at the same time. This too is an ongoing process.)

Out of that council, Simon Peter came up with this decision:

"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and fornication, and things strangled, and blood.4 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." (Acts 15:19-21)

which explains why observant Christians today do not eat meat that has not been drained of blood after being slaughtered by a cut to the throat.

Although this could go on for a very long time - there are more than two thousand years to cover - there is one last council which ought to show that the councils are, quite literally, before the Bible as the basis of Catholic doctrine. That one is the Tridentine Council of 1545-1563, referred to in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.

The Bible as we know it did not reach its current form until 1563, less than five hundred years ago. The contents of the Bible grew, shrank, and changed over time by the decisions of religious scholars. There have been, and are, Bibles that differ - the Ethiopian Bible was quite different from the Bible used by Roman Catholics and other Christians, although it is now the same.

[goddess40]

57. Thank you for your response

Actually I'm thrilled that people pick and choose what they want, what a horrible place this would be if everyone followed their religion to the letter. I guess what I object to is the feeling of superiority that being (insert any religion) that some people get and that they like to lord over other people, when in fact they themselves aren't 'pure'.

I just wish when people did their picking and choosing they did with their brain and not with the motive to find fault in someone else. Religion should be personal and private and not matter a hoot in public. When someone starts their statement with "I'm a Christian (or whatever) as a qualifier I tune them out

[UncleSepp]

59. Amen to that ;-)

I like how you put it here:

"I just wish when people did their picking and choosing they did with their brain and not with the motive to find fault in someone else."

Take care and have a happy new year!

[goddess40]

60. Same to you

Lets hope this year brings back many reasons to be proud of America.

[Tyo]

40. How about turning that around?

I have trouble understanding how people who believe in religious system "X" will define what it means to be a good and moral person under the rules of relgious system "x" and then apply those rules to "prove" that someone who does not believe in religious system "x" is not a good and moral person.

[UncleSepp]

42. That's another one I don't get.

Seriously. I don't get either one.

[UncleSepp]

46. After thinking about it, that doesn't seem to be turning anything around

If you do not subscribe to X, then you can't define X and use your definition to determine what it is to be a good X.
If you are an X, you can't use X to define what it is to be a good non-X.

If opera sounds like noise to you, being an opera critic is probably not the best job for you. Your definition of opera probably shouldn't be used to determine what is good opera. It's still all noise to you. If you are an opera fan but can't stand jazz, you can't use your definition of what makes opera good to prove why jazz is bad. Opera is not jazz. Saying 'a jazz singer is not a good singer because he uses a microphone', defining all good singers by what opera singers do, doesn't make sense. Saying 'opera is not good music because it you can't dance to it' similarly doesn't make sense. Opera and jazz are both music, but they are not the same expression of music.

If you really don't care one way or the other about music, then defining what is good music and what is not good music will be very difficult for you, since none of it is all that good to you. The argument will tend toward the abstract or the academic, or toward your personal preferences, or toward popularity (or the lack thereof) as the measurement of goodness.

If you can't differentiate music from other sound, you have nothing on which to base a judgment about what music is good and what music is bad. The essence of music is something you do not perceive, do not feel, and do not need. People jumping around or weeping or clapping to something that sounds no different to you from the rhythmic noises of the washing machine will seem quite bizarre and nonsensical to you, and that in itself makes sense: the people enjoying music are moved by something you can't hear, and moreover, it is something which can't be quantified. We can find the part of the brain active in the perception of music. We can see what happens in a person's brain who can hear music when he listens to music, and we can see what doesn't happen in the brain of a person who can't hear music, but we can't really quantify what is music and what is not music. We can't hold up a handful of music. We can't eat it. We can't wear it. We can use music for various purposes, for generating a mood, for crowd control, for keeping time in a parade, but that sort of thing only works on people who can hear and feel the music. In general, music is a thing that seems to have always existed and seems to be deeply ingrained in how the human mind works, but it has no objective existence or practical purpose other than manipulating the feelings and behaviors of people.

If you are a musician encountering such a person, all the passionate descriptions of why music is wonderful won't change that person's feeling about music. It makes no sense to define that person as a bad musician when they aren't a musician, or a perceiver of music, at all. It also doesn't make sense to define that person as stupid or uncultured for not feeling that the sound of bagpipes is stirring and beautiful and the sound of a train whistle is annoying sound pollution. It would be like arguing over whether durian smells like fruit or sewage. It smells like either, depending on the senses of the smeller. Neither one is wrong, but you're not likely to get the person who sniffs it and smells sewage to join you in a meal of the stuff.

Oddly enough, that's reminded me that it's going on lunchtime and I am still not at work :-) Take care.

[adamblast]

33. I gave it a good 20-year try...

...but eventually found it impossible.

At present, I have as much or *more* respect for those who find the Bible racist, sexist and homophobic than I do for those who try to rehab the Bible and pretend it can be construed as pro-gay.

[Jella]

41. I agree...

I've just come out as a non-believer, and use to hold on Jesus Christ as my connection with Christianity. It was a waste of time, 20+ years of internal struggles. I've come across an ex-christian site that has show where Jesus did confirm that the teaching of the old-testament were indeed still valid. This site has ex ministers and folks that have theology background, and/or long term study of the Bible, so I'm more inclined to believe what they have to say. I'm not Bible literate, at least in the sense of knowing where it's stated, but I'll find some of the discussions and link them. Believe me, I was crushed to read that about Jesus, as I stated he was my only hope for a true Christian connection.

Tyo, I don't think you got it wrong at all.

I understand how folks need spirituality, I felt God in nature, and the miracles of the human spirit, so this has been rough, but I'd rather have truth and logic and I can accept that once I die, that's it. I'm going to live my life for now, and appreciate it for what it is.

[Tyo]

47. I'm "blessed"

in that I didn't have to struggle with the issue, Jelia, as you and adamblast did before you broke free of the God-myth (we don't need to believe in God to be spiritual). But I have two close friends and one acquaintance who are tearing themselves apart trying to reconcile being gay with being at the same time mega-church Fundie, "Christian Searching", and Roman Catholic respectively. This is on their minds constantly it seems like and it's maddening and painful to watch them go through this. The experience is what prompted my original post.

I don't try to influence them or convert them to my way of thinking. Believe me the temptation is there, but it would be counterproductive as well as presumptuous. I do listen and question though and much of what I've read here I've already heard from them. Some people seem fine with the compromises, the choices, or the simple blind faith that somehow Jesus will pull them through. However, my friends and their co-religionists don't seem to believe that the coming of Christ rendered the OT "inoperative" (I asked specifically about this after reading it stated in an earlier post) and in that seems to lie one of the central issues for them.

[Jella]

61. I'm sorry Tyo for taking so long to respond...

it kind of got lost in all the posts I've been reading lately. Anyway, I'm not to the point where I would argue with any of my Christian gay friends, but I do ask them questions. They are pretty sure of themselves, and usually jump on the defensive. People generally believe that you HAVE to respect others beliefs... well I don't see it that way, I can respect a person, and not respect views they have. I will stand with in my gay brothers and sisters as to our rights, and our treatment, but any other issue generally is up for debate. Here are a few passages thar refer to the torah, that the old testiment is valid. I was for a long time an apologist for Jesus and the New Testiment, and while I had heard these passages before, I chose to disregard them.


Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Faith does not abolish any part of the Torah as a whole (Matthew 5:17-20, James 2:10)
Keeping the Torah is part of the faith that gets you to heaven (Matthew 19:17; Revelation 12:17; 14:12; 22:14)
You will abide in Yeshua's love, if you keep Torah (John 14:15-23) as He abided in the Father's love by keeping Torah (John 15:10; Hebrews 2:17-18, 4:15)
Faith in Yeshua does not cancel out what the Torah says, it establishes it (Romans 3:31)
Torah is itself "liberty" and the standard we are to judge ourselves by (James 1:22-25)
It is those of the flesh who are not subject to the Torah (Romans 8:5-8)
If you say you know Him, and ignore His Torah, you are a liar (1 John 2:3-7)
It does not matter if you are a Jew or a gentile, what matters is keeping God's Torah (1 Cor. 7:19)
The "law of love" is that we keep his Torah - which is by no means a "burden" (1 John 5:3; 2 John 1:6; Matt. 11:29,30)

[kevinbgoode]

36. How can someone be "christian" and a member of the 700 Club

or the Jerry Falwell nutcase festival...or the Concerned Women for America....or Focus on the Family...or the American "Family" Association?

[closeupready]

44. Here's my problem with many comments on this thread

And it's a common refrain: If the cabal of smart guys running the religion say "chewing gum is a sin," you have to agree or else you can't call yourself a Christian/Catholic/rastafarian/etc. That's silly.

Who was Martin Luther to contradict the powerful Vatican? Or Galileo? Obviously, none of us are probably as brilliant as they were, but the point is, holding a dissenting view about an aspect of a system of beliefs is not inconsistent with agreeing with all/most other views of that system.

In other words, is someone's position on homosexuality the defining standard/litmus test of whether or not that person is a Christian? If so, then what about a person's position on, say, stem cell research? That is, if I (as a Catholic) think stem cell research is good, would you then say that I can not call myself a Catholic? What about rejecting the infallibility of the Pope? If you affirm that a member may not disagree with a church's hierarchy, then I would suggest you must be unfamiliar with the Jesuits or even the origins of Protestant Christianity itself.

[Tyo]

50. Problem is that the "smart guys" didn't just make this stuff up.

It was all there in the Bible already. The Bible probably would have addressed stem cell research if stem cell research had been around when the various "books" were being written, so I guess they have to extrapolate there.

One of the questions I have is, if the Bible is the inspired word of God and was apparently intended to be taken as a whole by the divinely inspired people who compiled it how does one justify disassembling it and saying that while this applies, that doesn't?

I'm operating under the assumption that there was indeed divine inspiration involved in putting this thing together. If not, then it is simply a collection of the laws and history of some Bronze Age tribe (who didn't approve of homosexuality among other things) coupled with a record of the reported teachings and miracles of a Jewish religious radical who lived 2,000 years ago. In other words, a relic of academic interest only, although in many ways beautiful literature.

If the former is the case then it seems to me that gays should have some serious issues with the Bible and Christianity.

PS
If one accepts the Pope as the head of the Roman Catholic Church, Supreme Pontiff, and Vicar of Christ, and the Pope and the clergy in council have decreed that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith or whatever it was that they decreed how can a Catholic not go along with it? I'm asking for clarification as a non-Catholic, not to challenge your assertion.

[UncleSepp]

54. No, it wasn't all there in the Bible already.

You'll like my longwinded post about where doctrine comes from, I think. Take a scroll upthread.

[Tyo]

55. I love your posts.

I do have to read through them a few times to get everything :)

[mondo joe]

58. But as I've told you already, ALL believers rationaize the religion to fit themselves.

Hence you have believers who find in the same bible arguments for and against capital punishment, for and against slavery, for and against racism, for and against democracy.

[Tyo]

62. I understand that

What I don't understand is why THEY don't seem to have a problem with it. How can you rationalize in and around the through the revealed message(s)of God as set forth in the divinely inspired texts that comprise the Bible? But that's what people do. That or they simply knowingly ignore the bits that they don't like and hope that when the day comes God will let them into Heaven with a warning. Or of course one takes the whole package pretty much literally. Considering what the Bible purports to be only the latter approach makes sense to me. But I'm not even a Christian, which might be why I have such a problem with this.

[mondo joe]

63. How can you NOT? The bible is filled with enough contradictions that you HAVE to

interpret it into some cohesive whole (which means disregarding a lot of it).

The bible is a Rorschach - people find in it what they project.

[Tyo]

64. Alllright....

But it seems pretty irresponsible not to mention cruel of God to just toss this thing out and say, here you go guys. This is the book, this is "the word". Be forewarned that it's full of contradictions and some things in it carry more weight than others and over time some things might cease to apply but other things won't. And it's up to you, my imperfect creations, to figure it all out. Try not to kill too many of each other in the process.

And for those of you who somehow get it right, bingo. You'll have an eternity of joy and happiness with Me and the other Heavenly host. But get it wrong and you'll face an eternity of unspeakable physical and mental suffering. Good luck!

[mondo joe]

65. That might well be an argument againstbeing christian, but not against being

gay and christian, which I thought was your original point.

In addition, some Christians don't believe in the hell thing anyway.

[Tyo]

66. That's true

Kind of got sidetracked from the gay aspect.

So having read all this I'm quite prepared to concede that I was wrong in my assumption that one can not be gay and Christian since it appears that you can be just about anything and Christian.

I suppose that even though I don't believe in God or in Heaven or in Hell I could be a Christian if I claim to subscribe even loosely to the moral teachings of Christ, or at least the ones I like. Being gay in this context would be just about the least of my issues. My mistake was in thinking that the Bible meant something but obviously it means everything or nothing or whatever a given individual wants it to mean. Sorry it took me so long to figure that out. I can be pretty thick sometimes. :7

[L A Woman]

45. I am gay and Christian

I also believe in evolution. None of these things are mutually exclusive. As a Christian, I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, who never said a word about homosexuality, but he did speak extensively on love, peace and forgiveness.

There are some comments on it in the Bible, just as there are anti-woman passages, but the Bible was written by MEN, not God and not Jesus. It's important to recognize their shortcomings and put the things they said into the context of the times.

Anyway, I do not let ignorant fundamentalists define Christianity for me.

[mitchtv]

49. I am a fallen away Catholic

we always ignored the OT. I was taught the primacy of conscience.
I feel if you are a "red letter"( quotes from JC are in red) Xian, you can still be gay and Xian. I am no longer a religionist, but I find no disagreement with JC. The rest is all BS

[DarkTirade]

56. Personally, I've always thought that the word of Paul shouldn't be taken seriously.

I mean... he fell and hit his head. That was what made him into a saint? Riiiiiiight. That's not a recipe for knowing the will of God, that's a recipe for brain damage.
And the old testament... well, the whole new testament was basically Jesus coming around and saying, "Hang on a minute... we're going to try something new here. Let's forget the old stuff and start over."

Just my opinion. :)

[Shell Beau]

67. The point of being a Christian is to believe in Jesus Christ as the

Savior. Period. The Bible gives us guidelines to live by. It can be interpreted in tons of ways. God is the only judge on who is a Christian. He knows our hearts.

And yes, I am a Christian. No, I am not gay.

[Q3JR4]

68. I met

Archbishop Bernard Price of the Malibar Catholic Church in California. Now I know what some of you are going to be thinking, "California well there you go." Bear with me for a moment here.

This man runs a church in which nearly all of the clergy are gay. The congregation, on the other hand, are mostly straight.

The way he's explained it to me is that in the beginning all the branches of Christianity got together and decided what Christianity is. These are your Ecumenical Counsels. They adopted things like the Nician Creed that everyone believed in and followed.

The Catholic Church sent some emissaries into Antioch to convert the "heathens" there and these emissaries lost touch because of the Crusades. They never got the memo when the Catholic Church called new counsels that made decisions like priests can't be married, all the property a priest owns has to go to the church when he dies, that sort of thing.

So now you have a branch of Catholics (who have set up shop in California) that read the bible in the original Aramaic and Hebrew. It turns out that the "sins" most people like to attribute to homosexuality are mistranslations at best.

I think religion is mostly about love and people who attempt to make it about anything else, i.e. you don't believe the way that I do, would always bring hate into the mix no matter what.

[Jamastiene]

69. Yes, assuming you don't follow the Old Testament

and you don't listen to anything Falwell or Robertson say...EVER. The actual red words in the New Testament are the only parts that should matter to any Christian, whether they be gay, straight, bi, not sure, or try-sexual. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, actually, so the institution of Christianity (the leaders for the most part) have it all wrong. They are just assholes. Real Christians don't hate and don't think homosexuality is even a sin.

[Jamastiene]

70. Hehehe, that was reply number 69.

I'm so fucking evil. I didn't even try for it, but I got it. I wear it like a badge of honor. :rofl:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

71. You can get round the OT, but not around Paul.

As I understand it, condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible is found in two places - the Old Testament, and Paul.

It's entirely possible to be a Christian without following the instructions in the Old Testament - indeed, my understanding is that a large part of the Gospels is Jesus explaining that you no longer have to - that covenant has fulfilled its purpose.

I think that to ignore the writings of Paul on the subject requires a considerable degree of either heterodoxy or doublethink.

To be a Christian and gay, you basically have to believe that Paul didn't know what he was talking about. That means that you reject both the divine inspiration of the bible and the authority of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which very few Christians do.

It *is* possible to believe that Jesus lived and was the Son of God, and the bits of the Bible referring to him are correct, but that St Paul was just a man and that much of what he said was wrong, but it's not a position I think one could arrive at from the evidence in any coherent way - I think the only way people get there is "reverse engineering": "I am a Christian; I do not think homosexuality is immoral; what set of facts would let me square these two beliefs?"

[closeupready]

73. No offense, but I don't understand what your point is.

And it doesn't make sense.

By "reverse engineering", do you mean "rationalization"?

Religious faith itself is a rationalization, i.e., it is not based a faith which is based upon scientific observations of reality but rather irrational belief in the truth of a system of values/injunctions/writings.

Can you please explain in more detail what you mean. Thanks.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

74. Now there's a contentious claim...

In brief:

I don't think most religious faith is irrational. I think it's based on *faulty* reasoning, but that that's a different matter entirely.

I can see how one could arrive at the conclusion "Christianity is true" by simply examining all the evidence one is presented with and drawing conclusions from it impartially.

I think that the only way a person would construct a chain of reasoning to the conclusion "bits of Christianity are true, but the stuff St Paul says isn't" is if they decided beforehand that that was the conclusion they wanted to arrive at, and then tried to justify it.

[closeupready]

75. You mean, you're willing to claim something is true without objective proof?

That's, by definition, irrational.

If traditional interpretations of Paul's works could be substantiated with Paul's original writings, then your case would be stronger, but we don't have even THAT.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

76. I'm what?

What do you think I'm claiming is true without objective proof?

For what it's worth, I think the writings of Paul are one of the few parts of the Bible that there's a good chance *are* a reasonably accurate representation of the events contained therein, because they were actually written first-hand. They may well include deliberate misrepresentations, but I guess they aren't nearly as polluted by Chinese whispers as most of the rest.

[closeupready]

77. I mean in terms of facts and proof, and what "truth" is.

>>I don't think most religious faith is irrational. I think it's based on *faulty* reasoning, but that that's a different matter entirely.

I can see how one could arrive at the conclusion "Christianity is true" by simply examining all the evidence one is presented with and drawing conclusions from it impartially.<<

What evidence - the Bible? The Bible is no more an observable fact than Little House on the Prairie or Lord of the Rings.

What do you mean by impartial? You mean, like if someone was from another planet and read the Bible, you think they would become Christian?

>>I think that the only way a person would construct a chain of reasoning to the conclusion "bits of Christianity are true, but the stuff St Paul says isn't" is if they decided beforehand that that was the conclusion they wanted to arrive at, and then tried to justify it.<<

The threadstarter made an identical claim earlier, and I countered it upthread. For the sake of brevity, I'm going to direct you up there instead of rehashing the same points here.

[ScreamingMeemie]

80. And Jesus told us on his deathbed...er cross...er after he left the

tomb...that we had to listen and believe everything Paul told us...right? That's why this doesn't wash, if one believes.

[rawtribe]

72. CORPORATE AVENGER LYRICS

The Bible Is Bullshit

Christians murdered indians
Christians murdered indians

In the history of the human race
Of all the inspirations for the separation of man from his true tribal culture
Of all the inspirations for acts of violence from one man onto another,
From one nation onto another, from one oppressor onto the oppressed.
There is no more guilty party and inspiration than those books known
As the holy bible the Koran and the bagavad gita to spread separation of mankind.

The bible is bullshit, the bible is bullshit

The bible is bullshit, the Koran is a lie, the bagavad gita did not fall from the sky
These are the books that were written by men.
They've caused wars, now follow if you can,

They took away our love and gave us fear
Tried to make us hate the one who put us here
Then they took our sacred songs and made them wrong
Then they took away our prayers and gave us theirs

The bible is bullshit, the Koran is a lie, the bagavad gita did not fall from the sky
These are the books that were written by men.
They've caused wars, now follow if you can,

First they created sin so they could win
Then they built the cages they could put us in
Then they took away our tribes and gave us jail
Then they took away the earth and gave us hell

The bible is bullshit, the Koran is a lie, the bagavad gita did not fall from the sky
These are the books that were written by men.
They've caused wars, now follow if you can,

It's time for you to love one another
It's time for you recognize your brother
It's time for us to stop killing our mother
It's time for us to care for each other
The bible is bullshit, the bible is bullshit
The bible is bullshit, the bible is bullshit

It's time for you to love one another
It's time for you recognize your brother
It's time for us to stop killing our mother
It's time for us to take care of each other

It's time for you to love one another
It's time for you recognize your brother
It's time for us to stop killing our mother
It's time for us to take care of each other

The bible is bullshit, the Koran is a lie, the bagavad gita did not fall from the sky
These are the books that were written by men.
They've caused wars, now follow if you can,

They took away our love and gave us fear
Tried to make us hate the one who put us here
Then they took our sacred songs and made them wrong
Then they took away our prayers and gave us theirs

The bible is bullshit, the Koran is a lie, the bagavad gita did not fall from the sky
These are the books that were written by men.
They've caused wars, now follow if you can,

First they created sin so they could win
Then they built the cages they could put us in
Then they took away our tribes and gave us jail
Then they took away the earth and gave us hell

The bible is bullshit, the Koran is a lie, the bagavad gita did not fall from the sky
These are the books that were written by men.
They've caused wars, now follow if you can,

It's time for you to love one another
It's time for you recognize your brother
It's time for us to stop killing our mother
It's time for us to care for eachother

The bible is bullshit, the bible is bullshit
The bible is bullshit, the bible is bullshit
The bible is bullshit, the bible is bullshit
The bible is bullshit, the bible is bullshit

[DuaneBidoux]

79. Read literally, symbolically, or otherwise try this on for size:

Nowhere is it mentioned that "two women" cannot lie together. It is only, if even indirectly, referred to as being men that "could not lie together."

It is funny how the fundies want to read it literally for homosexuality but not for the admonition that makes it "sin" for men, but the lack of admonition that makes it okay for women.

It may be at that time that popular norms and culture couldn't even imagine 2 women together (as they could not imagine women being sexual beings period). In any case, bring this one up if you ever get into a generic debate with a fundie, it's one more tool in you debate toolbag.