Lots of people are using 'Christians' when what they really mean is a particular type of Christian. I certainly understand that yes, there are many discriminating Christians, but there's also many accepting Christians. I'd really like it if we didn't encourage these stereotypes/generalizations. As a Christian myself, I find it somewhat offensive when people just say 'Christian' or 'devout Christian' when what is really meant is 'unaccepting Christian.' There are many devout Christians out there who accept people for who they are, and devout does NOT mean that they are conservative. Devout people can be conservative or liberal, so please don't just assume.
For me personally, being grouped in with those Christians is somewhat painful because in my view, they aren't on the right path religiously; almost like they aren't even my religion. They aren't following what I believe to be the main teaching of Jesus, which is to love others no matter what. I find it really painful and annoying to be grouped in with these people, because I and a lot of other Christians aren't like them.
Anyways, basically please just respect that there are more than just one type of Christian.
It seems like lots of us here don't want to encourage stereotypes but I feel like this one has been ignored or overlooked, so I really just wanted to say something about it.
Good point Dean, I'll be more careful myself.
Well actually a Christian is just a Believer in Jesus Christ and God, Know a saint is a believer but also tries his or her best to not sin nlike your average Christian, Thoes are what you call saints of God the ones who use the bible scriptures alot or not condoning LGB and T
Good point though, The lgb tends to do that alot
Quote from: Brandon on December 10, 2013, 04:57:28 PM
Well actually a Christian is just a Believer in Jesus Christ and God, Know a saint is a believer but also tries his or her best to not sin nlike your average Christian, Thoes are what you call saints of God the ones who use the bible scriptures alot or not condoning LGB and T
I know that both sides of the spectrum are Christians, I'm simply pointing out that there are different KINDS of Christianity. I did not say it was a different religion, just that it is similar to that. Different Christians put their focus on different things.
Quote from: Brandon on December 10, 2013, 04:57:28 PM
The lgb tends to do that alot
could you re-word that possibly? I'm confused about what 'that' is referring to.
We don't allow any groups or individuals to be attacked, Dean, but it's up to the members to report posts that are offensive. Then the Staff can address them, otherwise you're just hoping a moderator stumbles upon the post. As a former Staff member, I can tell you we don't read every post, there isn't time. Hugs, Devlyn
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on December 10, 2013, 05:22:49 PM
We don't allow any groups or individuals to be attacked, Dean, but it's up to the members to report posts that are offensive. Then the Staff can address them, otherwise you're just hoping a moderator stumbles upon the post. As a former Staff member, I can tell you we don't read every post, there isn't time. Hugs, Devlyn
It's certainly not a deeply offensive thing, to me at least, it's simply a stereotype that I'd like to see reduced. And I know that when people say that they certainly aren't trying to be offensive, they probably just don't realise what they're saying. I figured that it wasn't worth reporting, just bringing attention to it.
Again, you're hoping someone stumbles upon it, in this case the person who said something about Christians. Reporting a thread is anonymous, only the Staff knows who reports a thread, and it is never disclosed. Hugs, Devlyn
There are Christians who don't accept transsexuality, just as there are Non-Christians who do not accept.
Lets not bring religion in when we don't need to.
Quote from: Sarah Louise on December 10, 2013, 06:24:32 PM
There are Christians who don't accept transsexuality, just as there are Non-Christians who do not accept.
Lets not bring religion in when we don't need to.
I'm not saying there aren't non-Christians who don't accept, just that being a Christian doesn't automatically mean a person won't accept it.
Quote from: Sarah Louise on December 10, 2013, 06:24:32 PM
There are Christians who don't accept transsexuality, just as there are Non-Christians who do not accept.
Lets not bring religion in when we don't need to.
I agree with this. Describing someone as Christian is no different than describing them by another role. Saying "that Christian supports the LGBT community" is no different than saying something like "that guy in the green shirt supports the LGBT community". "Christian" is just a label. Everyone's beliefs and opinions vary regardless of what they label themselves as.
I see where you're coming from Dean but where does it stop with the labelling? It's unaccepting versus accepting Christians now but what happens when people start to break it down even further? What if a Christian accepts homosexuality but not transexuality, are we going to have to start specifying what they accept as Christians so we don't accidentally step on someone's toes?
If someone's talking about a Christian who has said or done something discriminatory towards the LGBT community, it's safe to say they're an "unaccepting" Christian without having to come out and label them as such every single time.
I believe Dean is referring to a specific post where "devout Christians" were painted with a broad brush as bad people, and that's wrong. And you should report it, hon. Hugs, Devlyn
All I'm trying to say here is that if someone is unaccepting then Christian isn't the right descriptor. 'Unaccepting person' is okay, 'unaccepting Christian' is okay, just that 'Christian' isn't a way to say unaccepting...
Sure I posted this with a post in mind, but I've seen more than one person do it. I'm just trying to call attention to the mindset that Christian=unaccepting that some people have...
Quote from: CursedFireDean on December 10, 2013, 08:02:58 PM
All I'm trying to say here is that if someone is unaccepting then Christian isn't the right descriptor. 'Unaccepting person' is okay, 'unaccepting Christian' is okay, just that 'Christian' isn't a way to say unaccepting...
Sure I posted this with a post in mind, but I've seen more than one person do it. I'm just trying to call attention to the mindset that Christian=unaccepting that some people have...
Yup, count me with CursedFireDean on this one 100%, I'm tired of the anti-Christian gang bangers that post their own brand of bigoted diatribes painting all of us with a broad brush, it's insulting and not a good way to ever make any extra friends who might even care for whatever else they ever post here rather than just glossing over it as if their opinion is worthless and no longer counts. I usually avoid religious topics because although these anti-Christians don't believe and scorn those who do, they can't resist camping on the thread and making everyone miserable with their nasty opinions. This being said, real believers accept everyone just as Jesus does.
The only thing I'd say is that as an atheist any religious affiliation is a red flag for me because there's few religions that don't state something homophobic or anti-trans in their books. Christians DO follow a book that is against LGBT. Therefore IMO, regardless of any argument, I feel that justifies being anti-Christian until Christians prove themselves otherwise.
For me it'd be how I'd view someone who has a math book that tells them subtracting a negative doesn't equate to adding. Until they do the sum 1 - (-1) and give me an answer of 2, I'm assuming they're going to give me an answer of 0 because that's what their book says.
Quote from: Jack_M on December 10, 2013, 08:35:03 PM
The only thing I'd say is that as an atheist any religious affiliation is a red flag for me because there's few religions that don't state something homophobic or anti-trans in their books. Christians DO follow a book that is against LGBT. Therefore IMO, regardless of any argument, I feel that justifies being anti-Christian until Christians prove themselves otherwise.
I feel the exact same way.
The split between Christian support or unacceptance is somewhere between 40-60 and 50-50 and support is growing higher. It's not uncommon at all for acceptance. And as orange creamsicle said, there's more than one interpretation of the word.
Quote from: Jack_M on December 10, 2013, 08:35:03 PM
The only thing I'd say is that as an atheist any religious affiliation is a red flag for me because there's few religions that don't state something homophobic or anti-trans in their books. Christians DO follow a book that is against LGBT. Therefore IMO, regardless of any argument, I feel that justifies being anti-Christian until Christians prove themselves otherwise.
I am sorry but. . . lots of racist people feel this way about certain racial groups. "Most are criminals so therefore it's okay for me to be racist until an individual of a certain race proves they're not a criminal".
Quote from: Jack_M on December 10, 2013, 08:35:03 PM
The only thing I'd say is that as an atheist any religious affiliation is a red flag for me because there's few religions that don't state something homophobic or anti-trans in their books. Christians DO follow a book that is against LGBT. Therefore IMO, regardless of any argument, I feel that justifies being anti-Christian until Christians prove themselves otherwise.
For me it'd be how I'd view someone who has a math book that tells them subtracting a negative doesn't equate to adding. Until they do the sum 1 - (-1) and give me an answer of 2, I'm assuming they're going to give me an answer of 0 because that's what their book says.
I personally believe that the context of passages is lost and just the cherry picked verses are used by some (1 romans). I think that yes some Christians reject science, which make no sense because science/religion can function together.
The problem that plagues Christianity is that the loudest voices are what is being heard and those voices are often anti-LGBT. Around non-LGBT Christians I don't think I will ever feel safe until I'm fully passible and stealth. This is because of the hate the sin love the sinner mentality that exists with people who want to be loving, but still have issues with GLBT. There are some Christians that I do feel safe around. I always get the vibe of GLBT vs Christianity or science vs Christianity, which isn't true because these things can work together. The unfortunate part is these "competing" things can be perpetuated by churches. I don't think that churches are a problem, but when people just soak up the pastors message without any questioning (critical thinking) it can lead to negative things.
On the flip side GLBT people and organizations can further increase these factors by responding with negative things. It is a vicious cycle where people continue to argue and cannot understand each other.
Quote from: Jack_M on December 10, 2013, 08:35:03 PM
Christians DO follow a book that is against LGBT.
I wouldn't say the book itself is against LGBT, that's simply the interpretation some get from the book. The Bible works so well because people can read it and get an interpretation that is suitable to their needs. Yes, some are simply militant and are taking scripture literally and basing it's meaning on what those words (which might not be true to the original words after who knows how many translations and versions) mean in modern days. They have no reason to want to look at the times and places in which the books of the Bible were written.
Quote from: Trenton on December 10, 2013, 09:07:23 PM
I personally believe that the context of passages is lost and just the cherry picked verses are used by some.
Basically.
People of a certain race don't follow a common book telling them to be criminals though so it doesn't really relate. As for interpretation, I see that excuse all the time and I have read the bible. The way I see it, it's explicitly written down and in order to not be taken at flat out face value, you have to interpret it away. So for me, I just can't buy that. You're cool with it and don't get me wrong, I'm glad there are a lot of accepting Christians who can interpret that away, but at face value, I'm not happy with that excuse and can't personally buy into it. Especially when knowing the interpretation is not something followed by all. Again, I'm just giving you an honest view from a non-theist. I can't trust someone devout to a religion based on an anti-LGBT book to be accepting until they prove themselves to be.
Yes, you can argue that non-theists can be non-accepting, but the truth of the matter is that for the vast majority this just isn't true. They typically aren't influenced by any specific anti-LGBT books and so I don't see a red flag, I see more of a pale pink verging on white (white being that which would indicate accepting/safe). There's a hint of red in there still because it's not a definite but the liklihood is far, far lower.
I'm not saying it's okay to bash on the religious, I'm just giving you an honest view as to why people are anti-Christian until they prove themselves otherwise. IMO the burden is on the religious to prove themselves worthy and not on the rest of us to assume they're okay, and especially true in the LGBT community. In my everyday life, as stealth, I will full on admit that I'm wary and cautious around the religious and often try to feel them out in some way shape or form to find out if they are LGBT accepting because I don't want to make friends with people who will bash me or out me to all if they somehow found out. And if I can't feel them out, I just flat out decide it's not worth the risk. There's someone I recently found out is mormon, and that was it, I wanted nothing to do with them and turns out I was right in doing so.
I'm not trying to justify any hatred towards the religious and if you're religious that's all well and good. It doesn't affect my life (assuming people just keep the damn thing out of politics) but I'm just giving you an honest view. For a lot of people, especially in the LGBT community, religious = red flag and I honestly never see that changing. Feel free to defend your own branch of faith but you can't defend Christianity as a whole because it is a split with regards to acceptance. Some are fundamentalist and some aren't and it's not like you have a clear defining name for accepting side and non-accepting, the term Christian applies across the board.
I see where you're coming from Jack, I think we've all had bad experiences. . .
but I just found this shocking:
QuoteThere's someone I recently found out is mormon, and that was it, I wanted nothing to do with them and turns out I was right in doing so.
Did you ditch your friend before or after you were proved right in doing so? It sounds like it was before you were proved correct.
-----------------------------------------------------
ETA: I don't know. . . where I go to temple people wear turbans and headscarfs. Everyone there (including myself) has been called terrorist, sandn******, etc. by people who just assume we're going to blow them up or force everyone to follow Sharia law (even though we're not Muslims). While I am aware some people hate LGBTs of various religions and even those who don't follow a religion, I am tired of this "prove yourself" to me thing. Okay, prove myself as not hating LGBTs, prove myself as not being a terrorist, prove myself of being American. . . where does it end?
Again, I'm not saying assume that they're all okay. I am simply saying that it's hardly fair to use the term 'Christian' when ONLY talking about the unaccepting.
Those who are taking a literal view of the bible are clinging to a verse saying to not have sex with someone of the same sex, but that verse is right next to one saying don't wear clothes of mixed materials. Do they cling to that one? No. Their logic isn't without it's flaws either. You can't look at the flaws of one view without considering the flaws of the other as well. Some may interpret too much into it, but others flat out pick and chose their laws. Either way the thinking could be considered flawed.
I have many Mormon friends, all of whom have shockingly been completely awesome and way more understanding than most about my situation. So I wouldn't necessarily make too many presumptions off somebody's beliefs.
Quote from: CursedFireDean on December 10, 2013, 09:51:03 PM
Again, I'm not saying assume that they're all okay. I am simply saying that it's hardly fair to use the term 'Christian' when ONLY talking about the unaccepting.
Those who are taking a literal view of the bible are clinging to a verse saying to not have sex with someone of the same sex, but that verse is right next to one saying don't wear clothes of mixed materials. Do they cling to that one? No. Their logic isn't without it's flaws either. You can't look at the flaws of one view without considering the flaws of the other as well. Some may interpret too much into it, but others flat out pick and chose their laws. Either way the thinking could be considered flawed.
I think people just use Christian when describing people who are not accepting in an attempt to express to people why those people are not accepting, meaning they aren't accepting because they are Christians. To be clear, I'm not saying that all Christains are not accepting of trans or lgb people, as I know that's not true.
Quote from: wheat thins are delicious on December 10, 2013, 10:04:56 PM
I think people just use Christian when describing people who are not accepting in an attempt to express to people why those people are not accepting, meaning they aren't accepting because they are Christians. To be clear, I'm not saying that all Christains are not accepting of trans or lgb people, as I know that's not true.
I definitely get that. When clarifying WHY, then I think it's perfectly okay to say Christian because that is a legitimate reason, but I take issue when Christian is the SOLE descriptor, as if it automatically includes intolerance.
Quote from: CursedFireDean on December 10, 2013, 09:51:03 PM
Again, I'm not saying assume that they're all okay. I am simply saying that it's hardly fair to use the term 'Christian' when ONLY talking about the unaccepting.
Quote from: Jack_M on December 10, 2013, 09:37:36 PM
There's someone I recently found out is mormon, and that was it, I wanted nothing to do with them and turns out I was right in doing so.
Yes, some people are jerks regardless of any group the belong to or interests they have.
I wasn't raised Christian and my immediate family is atheist. There has never been any hate towards Christians, Jews or Islams. Before I became Christian I never noticed the stereotypes of anti-GLBT it was only after that I considered the stereotypes even though the Christians that I was around never fit that.
I don't think ones religious beliefs are a deciding factor of friendship. Basically it's like saying one guy with a blue shirt was mean to me, so then all guys who wear blue shirts are mean. I do believe in cutting people out if you have
proof that they aren't accepting.
I don't have a good track record with mormons and one physically assualted me twice. Not one accepting mormon thus far.
And I don't ignore or discriminate against religions, this is more just on who I let myself get friendly or close with. If people identify with their religion it suggests a stronger faith and possibility of that faith influencing their thoughts on the LGBT community, so I don't ignore so much as tread cautiously until such a time, if at all where the possibility to explore friendship opens up, assuming there's anything to base that friendship on. Honestly, someone who identifies with their religion isn't always a great friend to have as an atheist. I really don't like discussing religion with friends. I don't care what someone believes, they can believe in the tooth fairy or Santa for all I care. But if someone identifies with their religion to the point where you know their religion before you actually know them, that's enough of a turn off for me anyway regardless of LGBT issues. So I guess for a double issue, as an atheist I'm out right there anyway.
Although to be honest, personally, and maybe this is the result of living in the UK, I wouldn't say I've experienced christians to be the #1 non-accepting group. I mean, yeah, we see douches like the Westboro church in media and so on but in personal, every day life, I haven't really experienced any problems with christians myself. I've had far worse problems from muslims. Was bullied a lot at school with tons of mean things said to myself as well as the out lesbians (I was in an all girls school). And I've had muslim doctors refused to treat me. And still I'd say more issues from mormons than any other type of christians.
I think the truth is that it's become okay to bash Christianity but not so PC to bash jews or muslims that can be just as bad or maybe even worse.
Quote from: CursedFireDean on December 10, 2013, 05:05:47 PM
I know that both sides of the spectrum are Christians, I'm simply pointing out that there are different KINDS of Christianity. I did not say it was a different religion, just that it is similar to that. Different Christians put their focus on different things.
could you re-word that possibly? I'm confused about what 'that' is referring to.
Umm throwing Christians in a box Ive noticed
Quote from: CursedFireDean on December 10, 2013, 07:28:18 PM
I'm not saying there aren't non-Christians who don't accept, just that being a Christian doesn't automatically mean a person won't accept it.
I agree
I've had some problems with other Christians. Not many, though. The main one is the "God doesn't make mistakes" comment. Asking if cleft palates and other defects aren't real usually puts an end to that. People don't seem to understand, that's all. There are problems on "both sides." There are people who have a knee-jerk reaction as soon as they find out someone is religious, for example, and will make massive assumptions about them. The issues between "both sides" are not 100% coming from religious people even though their offenses are (IMO) far worse.
I do view my condition as a defect, but I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I know not everybody thinks of it that way.
Quote from: Jack_M on December 10, 2013, 10:54:15 PM
I think the truth is that it's become okay to bash Christianity but not so PC to bash jews or muslims that can be just as bad or maybe even worse.
And this statement right here is the core of what I'm asking we try and remove from the site.
Quote from: Brandon on December 10, 2013, 11:27:56 PM
Umm throwing Christians in a box Ive noticed
It's not just the LGB that do it. Trans people do it too.
Innocent until proven guilty is what I am going by.
My religion is about love and equality, I hope you find some of that.
Maybe instead of telling people how they should feel about a religion you should just lead by example and possibly keep the religious stuff out of a non religious part of the forum? Religion is going to be a sore point for many LGBT members and in my opinion that is why there us a religious part to the forum, I certainly don't go there. There's a very logical reason for LGBT people to be anti-theist and in this case anti-Christian and obviously when one points out why, the religious just take offense.
Nothing anyone says with regards to any stats or people being accepting VS not is going to detract from words at face value in a religious books. When people have faith they have teachings from said books. There is no actual logical reason to hate the LGBT community, in fact in many cases there is more logic to suggest it's good than bad (e.g. much needed population control, it exists in nature, etc). Unless you have been subject to teachings that are anti LGBT there's nothing logically telling us LGBT people are wrong/bad and for that, that mostly means religion. You can have racist or hateful parents but if this is separate to cult/groups/religion, eventually common sense and logic can show the child their parents are just being silly. But if they have a faith that has parts that can be quoted from the religious books to justify the hate, then it's harder for logic and common sense to detract them from hate.
The idea of innocent until proven guilty in the case of assuming all religious people will be accepting is honestly, to me, like seeing a guy with a holstered gun and assuming he's not going to shoot. The guy could actually be a cop or may have no intention of using it, but until I know that, I'm just gonna leave them be until such a time as it does indeed become clear they're safe.
A common atheist quote that may seem distasteful to theists but might help explain how atheists feel, and a quote I personally agree with. It demonstrates why there is a distrust or potential for such from the get go.:
" With or without [religion] you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."...Steven Weinberg
I'm out!
The biggest problem I have with your stance is that it can easily be expanded. If a religious book says "kill the infidel", you'd likely want proof that person isn't going to kill you upon discovering you're an atheist. Would you advocate that all IDs should state the persons religion on it so we know who to give extra pat-downs and scans to at airports? ??? It seems like that would cause all sorts of issues to me.
Btw, I did report the original post saying it might need to be moved to christianity. However, just because something seems to be in the wrong section doesn't mean its okay to continue on an anti-religious stance after someone said they found it hurtful. I am fine with you having your own opinion, but you just didn't seem too respectful.
Again, the purpose of my post is not to start a religious debate, simply to ask people to stop using a word. I really don't see what is wrong with asking some of the guys here to realise that 'Christian' does not ALWAYS equal unaccepting and it's offensive to imply that it does.