I am Christian, gay, and liberal (yes all three)

[dsc]

I don't know which one is most important which is why I chose alphabetical order. I also know that many right wing Christians and left wing secularists agree on one thing. You can't be both liberal and Christian. I also know that many right wing Christians and LGBT people agree on one thing. You can't be both gay and Christian. So why do I think I can be all three? I'll let Jesus explain it to you.

Matthew 25:31-46 KJV

31: When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34: Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37: Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38: When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39: Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40: And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41: Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44: Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45: Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46: And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

end of quote

This is Jesus' rubric. He tell us exactly what we are supposed to do to be at this right hand. We also know what we need to avoid doing to avoid everlasting punishment. Note what isn't in there. No mention of not having sex with someone of the same gender. No mention of abortion or premarital sex. What is mentioned instead is feed the poor, clothe the naked, visit prisoners, and welcome strangers. By funding food stamps, welfare, social security, and other such programs we are feeding, clothing, and giving water to Jesus. When we advocate for immigrants, minorities, women and the accused we are advocating for Jesus. When I fight for my rights as a citizen, fight for the rights of my students, and when I advocate to end the Iraq war I am fighting for Jesus. Jesus is there when lesbians and gays march in pride. Jesus is there when labor unions strike for better wages. Jesus is there when people gather to end war, or capital punishment. Jesus is there when blacks and Hispanics march for civil rights. In short, Jesus is a liberal and a liberal who didn't really seem to care who loved whom, just that they loved.

I know many of you can't fathom a Christian, gay, liberal. But there are more of us than you think.

[Mandate My Ass]

1. I can fathom it

I'm a recovering Catholic, rather agnostic, but I do believe a person named Jesus existed and I try to live by his words and deeds. I hate what the xtians in the RW of the Republican party are doing in the name of God because no God I know of would ask his children to hate or exclude his brethren for any reason. :hi:

Thanks for posting those words on a day when it feels like everyone on the whole planet seems bent on destruction.

[dsc]

3. thanks

I had pretty much lost my religion in my 20's due to thinking one couldn't be gay and Christian. It has taken a long time for me to get it back.

[msongs]

2. nbody's perfect :-) nt

[dsc]

4. we can try

[globalvillage]

5. I know at least three christian, gay liberals

probably more, but I don't discuss religion with very many people.
Honestly, I wouldn't think it all that unusual. Is it?

[readmoreoften]

6. Being a gay lefty christian seems as sensible as being a straight one.

It's the gay RIGHT WING christians that no one understands. Me included. Then it's seems like a case of the ol' stockholm syndrome to me.

[oberliner]

7. this is a GREAT post

That RWers are so selective in their application of Biblical quotations to make their various "arguments" shows just how disingenous their so-called deeply held relgious beliefs are.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. Lots of gays and lesbians in my church, as well as a

couple of trans-gendered folks. In 2004, the bumper stickers in the parking lot were overwhelmingly for Kerry, so I imagine most of the GLBT types are liberal and Christian.

In fact, the typical Episcopal parish would fall apart without its GLBT members. Its charitable works would cease, and it certainly wouldn't be as much fun. :-)

[MarkDevin]

9. I'd be more surprised if you were gay, black and Republican!

:evilgrin:

[dsc]

10. I haven't met one of those

but I am sure that there must be one somewhere.

[Glorfindel]

12. I actually know one...a gay, black, Repuke....sad case

he holds quite a high position (appointed) in the B*sh mis-administration and sees NO contradiction in his cooperation with fascism.

[beam me up scottie]

11. Who can't fathom it?

Give me a little credit, would you?

Over 85% of the country is christian, am I supposed to believe that atheists don't think any of them are gay and liberal?

Stop feeding the right wing pundits.

[Random_Australian]

19. I thought it was aimed at Christians who can't fathom it, myself.

Easy there, Bmus, you are getting a little cynical!



I wonder why you have not been purged from the dems yet that could be?

[charlie]

20. "Left wing secularists"

would be an odd way to address Christians, don't you think?

[Random_Australian]

21. Missed that the first time. What. The. Fuck.

[salvorhardin]

13. Yeah, I've got to agree with BMUS

Can you give some examples of liberals who don't think that gays can be Christians? I think you might be reacting to right winger fundamentalist Christians, who do say such things all the time. If there are such liberals out there please point them out to me so I can know to avoid them, and/or call them on their BS. Otherwise you're setting up a strawman.

[davidinalameda]

15. there are liberals who think that no other liberal can be a Christian

all you have to do is look around this forum

[beam me up scottie]

16. In the religion forum?

I don't remember ever reading anything like that.

Sounds like something a fundamentalist would say.

[salvorhardin]

17. Please provide me with an example

If you think it would violate DU rules then PM me, but please provide a concrete example because I haven't seen it in R&T. If so, I'd say that's a decidedly un-liberal point of view.

Note: I have seen this in GD, just before the poster was tombstoned.

[Random_Australian]

22. Uh, WHERE?

Who?

But more importantly, given that liberals know a number of other liberals, and that many liberals are Christian, and that those Jesus quotes are an oft repeated theme of Christianity in liberals, or in other words WE ALL KNOW LIBERAL CHRISTIANS, and given the Atheist/Agnostic forum respect for TallahasseGrannie, how in the triple freakery would any liberal think that even for a second?

[SPKrazy]

26. Well, They'd Have To Read The Atheist/Agnostic Forum First

then they'd have to realize that T Grannie posts there frequently and that she is a liberal Christian

I disagree with the OP as it does sound like a page from Rove's playbook

Fundie Christians will tell people that they can't be liberal (or even Democrat) and a Christian

and they would certainly for the most part (fundies) tell someone they couldn't be gay and Christian

but I don't know what secularists the OP is referring to, but I don't think that the ones in R/T are likely to say they don't think a person can be liberal and Christian.

They might say they don't understand how they could be, but that is a different thing as that is about the person saying they don't understand and not about the person being understood (or not understood) but I've not seen anyone saying that a liberal can't be a Christian at all.

[Random_Australian]

28. Thanks for the support SPK!

Thought another big atheist/theist rip was gonna open up. Good to know you are not howling for secularist blood, at least.

Cheers, mate! :toast:

[SPKrazy]

31. Sure!!!!

I've got no beef with secularists

in fact, although I have spiritual beliefs, I believe in a secular society as I don't think religion should be forced on people and there should be separation of church and state

plus, I truly haven't seen secularists saying Christians can't be liberals or visa versa

that's a fundie RW thing, not a left wing secular world view as far as I know.

[InaneAnanity]

14. Hey...

You said "So why do I think I can be all three? I'll let Jesus explain it to you."
------------------------------------
Tell Jesus to e-mail me. I don't trust a crusty old book with unverifiable authorship.

[Random_Australian]

18. What the hell? Right, I call bull shit.

:)

Left wing secularists think you can't be liberal and Christian?

Back that up! None have said it, none think it, and I challenge you to put forward evidence that left wing secularists are closed minded fools.

C'mon, back it up. I'm waiting.

[Exiled in America]

27. I don't think they think you can't be liberal and christian.......but

...I do think they often believe that liberal chrisitans are stupid, ignorant and inferior...but they pride themselves in being "tolerant" about it. :)

[Random_Australian]

29. Looks like a 'they' - not specific people.

I put it to you that apolitical secularists are the ones who would think that, and that LW secularists are pretty much all do NOT think like that.

Let me put it another way - how would you react if I said "I think that liberal Christians think other religions are stupid, ignorant of Christs love, and inferior.... but they snidely 'pride' themselves on not showing it"

Not a nice generalisation to make, is it.


***********************************]


WAIT A TIC!

You said "I do think" - in other words, you (somehow) actually THINK that, rather than are just saying rude things.

So, here we go! You think that - fine, now back it up!

And another question, how many 'left wing secularists' are you good friends with?

And why did you say that 'left wing secularists' have hateful things in common with the fundies in a forum with many 'left wing secularists' if not to inflame? Sure, I will take your word that it was not your intent, but I would like to know what you where thinking.

And a final question.... have you actually ASKED any group of left wing secularists what they think about religious people?

[Exiled in America]

30. Touching a sore spot are we?

First, I chose the word "they" because the poster to which I was responding chose the word "they." They in my mind refers not to all left wing secularists everywhere - because I don't think in sweeping generalizations like that, ever. "They," in my mind carries with it the automatic acknowledgment that it refers to more than one left wing secularist and less than all.

You combine my parsing mind with your hyper-defensiveness and we get your response. So let me just clear up any mistaken or ill chosen language for you so that you can move on. Though I certainly concede that not all left wing secular folks think the same way, or that any human beings think the same way, enough treat people of faith as ignorant and inferior to be a problem worth acknowledging.

Every time someone posts that religion is a crutch for the weak minded, or posts about how belief is fairy tales for foolish people, or questions the whether someone religious is as intelligent as someone without, they chose to treat people of faith as ignorant and inferior. Saying "that never happens here" is laughable and obtuse. There are many good people who would never do that. But there are other people who do, and they are rarely called on it or their insulting ways condemned by other secular folk, who choose to stay silent about it.

You next question makes me laugh. In point of fact, all my friends are secular. I actually don't have any friends of faith. You're making some assumptions about me without knowing me, one being that I am religious and not secular myself. They are my friends however, because they either have had enough exposure to not just religious institutions (which are often terrible) but the deep and very personal aspects of faith to be respectful and supportive of other people's faith experiences, and even fascinated and appreciative of the rich culture of religious history - even while not practicing themselves.

They wouldn't be my friends if all they wanted to do was sit around and talk about whatever news item they could find that day that paints people of faith in a bad light, or if they consistently spoke of peoples deeply held beliefs in dismissive mocking tones* or if they treated people of faith as inferior. The funny thing about it though is this: because they are not those kind of people, every single one of them recognizes and acknowledges on their own that leftist secular folks have a really bad tendency to treat people of faith as ignorant and inferior. They just come right out and say that.

Your next question is misleading and deceptively twists my words. I did not say: "left wing secularists' have hateful things in common with the fundies." You can find that statement nowhere. Nor any reference to fundies anywhere. What you've done though, is you've inferred that meaning yourself, and then spoken of it in your reply like I actually said it. That's a deception. You also said you will take my word that my intent is not to inflame. Well it isn't, but I never said anything about that either - in fact, I'm beginning to wonder if you are responding to the wrong post? You seem to be putting quite a few words in my mouth then responding to them...?

Your final question: yes, many many times. It's one of the subjects I've studied both academically and privately for nearly a decade. And the one thing that consistently boggles my mind is this particular personality of a secular person who simply cannot FATHOM the idea that the shit of some secular folks might actually stink like everyone else's. I mean, everyone knows in other groups that nothing is monolithic. The Democratic Party for example, certain has some bad apples, and it has some problems. It is not pure as the driven snow, and we all know that. But that doesn't change some general principles the broader party represents or some of the other truths we know. Likewise, when it comes to the secular vs. faith debate, both sides has some BAD ACTORS. Any rational person knows this. It is the height of foolish irrationality to say, "noooooo not we secular folk! We are pure as the driven snow - yes, all of us!"



*like if you said something like "hey if you want to believe in an imaginary friend that's fine" - that's not telling the truth as you see it, its being rude, its speaking of something very important to someone else in a demeaning way, and its designed to make them feel bad while making yourself feel good. There are other, better ways to speak truthfully about one's absence of belief than by refusing to speak respectfully of others deeply held beliefs.

[Random_Australian]

32. A hit and a miss, friend.

(Alternative title: If you think I think something, ask about it, not tell me what I think.)

1) No sore spot. I am one of the most unemotional people you will ever meet. If you see emotion in my posts, you are inferring it.

Just to make that clear, my argument is with the terms of your argument.

(And just before I start - my questions were not trying to make you look bad, they were actual questions.... given you reacted like this:

"You're making some assumptions about me without knowing me"

I will sound snide to say that you are also rather defensive, but only because of the limits of the language - I say "you are also defensive" to demonstrate that defensiveness /= sore spot. Just pointing that out.)

First, your hit:
If you really do mean 'just some' that is ok with me - the way you phrased the OP made it sound like this was not the case (see below for explanation).

Now, the misses. I must say that most of this came from, how shall I put it, your accusations? You need to be real careful in future.

Careful when you say things like this:

"Your next question is misleading and deceptively twists my words. I did not say: "left wing secularists' have hateful things in common with the fundies.""

No? Really? What about this?

"I also know that many right wing Christians and left wing secularists agree on one thing. You can't be both liberal and Christian."

"many RW Christians" + "and left wing secularists" + "agree" + "can't be both Christian and liberal"

And this is not hateful? Or is it that 'agree' does not mean they have it in common?

The next beef I have with you is building an entire paragraph around how you did not say that, with some rather offensive things like

"You seem to be putting quite a few words in my mouth then responding to them...? "

What is that if not an insult? (Of course, I am open to the possibility that you actually HAVE a good explanation)


If you want to say that there are secular gimboids, fine! I encourage it!

If all that went wrong was that when you said "I also know that many right wing Christians and left wing secularists agree on one thing. You can't be both liberal and Christian."

you meant

"I also know that many right wing Christians and some left wing secularists agree on one thing. You can't be both liberal and Christian." (Bold only added so it would stand out, not to add emphasis)

then that is fine. Kindly don't add fuel to the fire with accusations. :)

[Exiled in America]

36. Ok, you're definately confusing my posts with someone elses now.

You wrote:

Careful when you say things like this:

"Your next question is misleading and deceptively twists my words. I did not say: "left wing secularists' have hateful things in common with the fundies.""

No? Really? What about this?

"I also know that many right wing Christians and left wing secularists agree on one thing. You can't be both liberal and Christian."

I made one post, and one post only in this thread before you responded to me. That post did not include the quotation you just gave as my own.

I think this should be cleared up before responding to anything else.

So in response to this:

The next beef I have with you is building an entire paragraph around how you did not say that, with some rather offensive things like

"You seem to be putting quite a few words in my mouth then responding to them...? "

What is that if not an insult? (Of course, I am open to the possibility that you actually HAVE a good explanation)

I would say that I think was fairly even-handed seeing as how you are actually mistaken, are actually attributing words to me that I never said, and thus - if you put yourselves in my shoes - some of your comments back to me would certainly seem to be a little twisted in light of this.

I'm sure it was an honest mistake. You literally did seem to be putting words in my mouth and then responding to them. There's no insult there. Since I quite literally did not say them, its just a statement of fact.

Therefore, I'm very happy that you are open to the possibility that I have a good explanation, because I think you'll agree that in this case I do. You quoted me as saying something I never said.

[Random_Australian]

39. Yep! I did! Sorry friend, you sound so much like the OP that I did

not even notice.

The stuff I was responding to was in the OP alright, and had got me steamed up.

:blush:

Oh well.

Anyway, where were we?

(By the way, point of order, it is not 'putting words in your mouth' , it is 'erroneously attributing quotes' :) But that does not really matter)

[Zhade]

33. Point of order: "secular" does not mean "without religion".

Most believers, I'd wager, are secularists, in that they want a society free of laws dictated by various religious dogmas.

That was part of the flap about the Raw Story-published hate screed against atheists; the hack writer equated secular with atheist, and insulted both in the process.

As far as being respectful of beliefs, there is absolutely no requirement that anyone do so. It's good practice usually, but I'm not going to pretend to be respectful of idiocy like creationism or dangerous ideas like the rapture death-wish.

[Exiled in America]

35. Fair enough - I got trapped into the language by the OP

I'm not sure I would ever have come up with the phrase "left wing secularists" on my own. For some reason, it just sounds pejorative I don't know why.

I'm not sure if there is a universal agreed upon definition of secularism, all I can say that via my own interpretation and understanding I feel positive about the term. I will say however, that in a great deal of writings, both from atheists (such as George Smith, is one I'm thinking of because his book Atheism The Case Against God is setting on my desk right next to me) and theologians, things are frequently referred to as "secular vs. religious" as a clear distinction, I guess implying the two to be treated as exclusive. I personally much prefer your analysis, though I'm not sure there's a clear consensus about it.

As far as your last comment goes, there is (if you want to get right down to it) no requirement that anyone do anything. There are however, some pretty good principles to live by. Some are so good that I have yet to find a concrete example in human experience where they have ever resulted in negative effects. But that's not to say they won't tomorrow. Still, I do have a set of principles I live by and try to honor with my actions, though I'm no more perfect than the next guy. One of them is the principle of civility and respect for humanity.

So in that sense, I disagree with you. I am understanding your comments to basically reflect a mindset where its ok to say "your ideas are dumb, thus there's no responsibility on my part to treat you respectfully and I am free to mock or insult you, or anything else I feel." I disagree. I haven't found that attitude and principle to serve my life very well. Instead, I believe that human beings simply by fact of existing are entitled to a basic level of decent treatment by me, and this decent treatment includes a open and respectful attitude toward different points of view.

Naturally that is the ideal, however I also believe that human existence is a profoundly relational, interwoven, interdependent experience. So, the other person has some responsibilities to me as well. So when another person misbehaves in the manner in which they express their point of view (attack me, are belligerent, hateful, etc.) then that obviously stirs my emotions and frustrations and certainly closes the door to any discussion.

If a creationist wanted to talk about his beliefs about the creation of the world, I wouldn't necessarily be immediately dismissive of it. It would depend on the manner in which she/he wanted to discuss it. I'd be happy to listen and if the person was respectful, I would PREFER to be respectful back - just because that's what makes me most happy, and what I feel has served my life the best. It doesn't really matter whether there's a requirement that I do so or not. It's what I want to do. My life has been better for seeking to treat even crazy people respectfully whenever possible than it was where I felt free to be rude and dismissive anytime I judged someone else's ideas to be inferior to mine.

But that's only me. I can't speak for anyone else. However, I'm also not going to stop advocating what I have found to work well in my life and believe might work well in others, because I am of the opinion that the world would be a better place overall of people treated others with a little more mercy and a little more compassion - yes even the people who don't always deserve it.

[Zhade]

37. "I am free to mock or insult you" - let me stop you there.

I am absolutely *not* saying it's okay to mock people or insult them. Not at all.

But let's be clear: people are not their chosen beliefs. They identify with them, yes. Those beliefs are important to them, yes. But they are chosen beliefs (if they weren't, there would never be any converts), and thus not integral to a person the way, say, ethnicity or sexual orientation are integral to a person.

Mocking someone's chosen belief is not mocking the person. If someone tells me that hack and thief James Cameron is the greatest director ever, and they really really mean it, it's not mocking them to say I think he's a pompous asshole who's stolen more good work than he's created on his own (he DID lose in court for stealing the idea for the Terminator, after all). I'm not insulting them for being a Cameron fan, I'm insulting Cameron, who frankly sucks ass IMHO.

I admire your kindness toward those afflicted with numbskullery like creationism. I couldn't do it, because I know that "creation science" is a pack of lies (which I'm sure you do), and I simply cannot offer even patience for ideas built upon lies.

If that makes you more compassionate than I, it's a judgment I can live with. I just cannot make myself react with anything resembling respect for idiocy.

[Exiled in America]

38. First, I'm hearing what you're saying - but I think I have a new problem:

But let's be clear: people are not their chosen beliefs. They identify with them, yes. Those beliefs are important to them, yes. But they are chosen beliefs (if they weren't, there would never be any converts), and thus not integral to a person the way, say, ethnicity or sexual orientation are integral to a person.

Mocking someone's chosen belief is not mocking the person. If someone tells me that hack and thief James Cameron is the greatest director ever, and they really really mean it, it's not mocking them to say I think he's a pompous asshole who's stolen more good work than he's created on his own (he DID lose in court for stealing the idea for the Terminator, after all). I'm not insulting them for being a Cameron fan, I'm insulting Cameron, who frankly sucks ass IMHO.

Thanks for steering the discussion this direction! This hits on something I've been thinking about for days and days. I've heard several obviously thoughtful folk make the argument that mocking someone's chosen belief is not mocking the person. And I've stewed on this and stewed on this trying to decide what I think about it.

Something in me thinks there's something wrong with this reasoning. Let me take a few stabs at why:

First, I'm not sure if I like the idea that its ok to mock beliefs. I think its ok to disagree with beliefs, but I think I have a really problem with the spirit and attitude manifested in "mocking." I have read or seen brilliant minds mount utterly devastating, eviscerating attacks on another persons beliefs all through the power of pure reason and rationality, without ever saying a single word that could be construed as insulting. I have never in my entire life found someone who choses a mocking and or insulting tone to talk about beliefs disagreed with to ever be more effective than these former types of persons.

Second, I'm still trying to decide if I think the distinction between some one and some one's beliefs is significant. Beliefs are cherished by the people who hold them. So while we can concede that beliefs are not the same as the person I feel like the following comparisons are probably valid:

I would be a little bit like an artist slaving away on his labor and you, rather than politely explaining why its not to your taste, completely berating his art, telling him he as a fool to find it pleasing to him, laughing in his face about the art, and so on. Does saying "well I wasn't mocking you I was mocking your art" really matter at that point? It was still really unnecessarily rude, and there are better ways to explain that the art isn't to your taste (or even to encourage the artist to seek a new profession) without being insulting or humiliating about it.

It would also be a little bit like insulting someone's husband then telling the wife that she shouldn't be upset because he wasn't insulting her. What?

Why can't we just try to avoid being insulting period? Is it because you fear that will weaken your capacity to oppose and or disagree with viewpoints you find to be wrong? I don't think thats true at all. In fact I say again, that the BEST critiques I've ever seen, read or heard have always, always always been given from brilliant men and women who respectfully, courteously, fairly, and - frankly - humanely destroyed someone else's wrong ideas with the power of reason, insight and a little intuition. But yet the other person didn't have to walk away feeling like they just had the shit kicked out of them. And more often than not the other person wasn't so reeling from an beating that they could still give some thought to the excellent points made against their belief.

I just think its a better, more enjoyable, more productive way to approach life, so its what I choose to aim for.

[Zhade]

40. You're probably right.

I just get so tired of the same ridiculous arguments that have been defeated over and over and over and over again.

Sometimes, I just get sick of people being dumb. How hard is it to realize no religious book is literally true? I mean, sheesh!

Your way is better, mine is more satisfying. Well, temporarily at least.

[Exiled in America]

41. But listen, lest I sound too "pure"..... ;)

We all experience the same feeling of utter and absolute frustration at some of the deeply ignorant things people believe, and the negative conseuqences of those ignorant beliefs - especially when they are thrown in our face in an agressive or hostile manner.

I've...for lack of a better term....lost my shit on someone more than once.

I just compare the times I lose my shit to the times when I am able to remain civil and respectful even to someone who does not deserve it and the latter times seem to have all kinds of positive consequences that the former times usually don't.

...except for immediate satisfiaction, which you know, shouldn't be overlooked :)

[trotsky]

23. As many others have noted above,

I call bullshit on your claim that "many ... left wing secularists" think you can't be a liberal and a Christian. You are actually helping those right-wing fundie Christians by repeating this "the left is anti-religious" meme. Do you like increasing their power? Do you like unloading both barrels at your "left wing secularist" allies while Pat Robertson and Bill Frist and Ton DeLay cackle with glee?

[IndependentVoice]

24. Shhhhhhhhhhhh don't tell a fundie or his head might explode n/t

[Evoman]

25. Double Irony

1)The "left wing secularists" in this forum constantly agree that anybody who proffeses to be christian is a christian. All you need to do is believe in/worship christ. Its some of the christians on the board who often decide who is and who is not a true christian.

2) The first people to defend gay people on this board are usually the atheists/agnostics.

Your picking a fight with the wrong people.

[Zhade]

34. You DO realize that most believers here are leftwing secularists, right?

Secular does NOT mean without religion. It refers to the type of society one wishes to live in.

Please don't repeat rightwing lies like that, it doesn't help.