Why Do Christians Hate Gay People?

SKEPTIC: I came across the above video on Tangle (formerly GodTube), a Christian video sharing site that is normally pretty conservative in its viewpoint. However, in this particular video, a Christian experiences an amazing epiphany after a gay business friend asks him, "Why do you Christians hate us so much?" As he ponders the question, he comes to realize that it's true that "Christians have treated gay people with distain and with hate." He goes on to reflect that "when someone doesn't agree with my Christian worldview, I can become unloving." And not once did he bring up the nonsensical "Love the sinner, hate the sin," which is the standard Christian canard used to explain their attitude toward gay people.

The problem with that, of course, is that by labeling gay people as "sinners," you are judging them and setting yourself up as morally superior to them. And that sort of judgment can lead to all sorts of bigotry and discrimination against gays. In any event, my hat is off to this man for his ability to come to grips with the true nature of his feelings and his apparent willingness to try to change them.

PREACHER: I can agree with the guy in the video. I am also very ashamed of the "Christians" who call gay people bad names, pick on them, and go around with placards and bumper stickers that say, "God Hates Fags." I believe they are reacting in fear to how the gay community might mess up our world for future generations and call down God's judgment. Unfortunately, their foolish actions and words are just causing more alienation, and not really helping the problem they are trying to address. (You may notice that I don't include myself with them. I am not aware that I have ever called a gay person names, picked on them or said that God hates them. I would never want to.) It is very unfortunate that Christians who are reaching out to gay people in love and helping them in many practical ways (I personally know of many who do) don't get very much publicity.

The guy in the video did say that you should stand up for what you believe. He was confessing his and many Christians unloving actions, words, and attitudes towards the gay community. But he wasn't saying that homosexual acts and gay marriage were good things. Although he didn't use the words, I believe he would agree with "Love the sinner, hate the sin." That phrase is only nonsensical to those who find their identity only in what they think, feel, and do. I believe one's identity is much more than just those aspects. (Though maybe, as an atheist, that is all you have to go on.)

Those who find their identity only in what they think, feel and do, get bent out of shape even when someone lovingly points out something about their behavior that is wrong. Love wants the best for other people. Accepting unhealthy immoral behavior is not love, it is indifference.

SKEPTIC: Well, it's great that you don't call gay people names or pick on them, but that's not really the issue. The issue is tolerance and acceptance of a group of people who are different from you. Unfortunately, Christianity (more often than not) becomes a barrier to real tolerance because it is so condemning and fearful of gays. When you say that their behavior is "unhealthy" and "immoral," that's not tolerance. That's a very harsh judgement which is based solely on your Christian worldview. Imposing that judgement on someone who is merely living out who he (or she) truly is (not who they suddenly decided to become) is destructive and hurtful. A truly tolerant person's attitude would be "to each his own." A truly tolerant person would congratulate a gay couple for finding someone to love and express support for such a union. But I don't see that happening within the Christian community anytime soon. They're too busy trying to deny rights to gays.

I guess that's the dilemma the guy in the video faces. While he understands that he has been unloving in his attitude, his religion prevents him from truly accepting gays. And while many Christians speak of wanting to show love, when someone accuses a gay person of immorality (like you just did), I suspect that feels more like hate.

And by the way, there is a lot of evidence that points to gay relationships in the Bible, especially the relationship between David and Jonathan.

PREACHER: Frankly, I think that those who see homosexual relationships in the Bible (the writer of the article forgot to mention the relationship of Jesus and the "beloved" disciple John) aren't able to discern between what is actually written in the text and their own imaginations. Even if any of those relationships actually had sexual acts in them, they still wouldn't be justified since other passages in both the Old and New Testaments clearly condemn such acts. Was physical attraction a factor in these relationships? Quite possibly. Did they stimulate each others sexual organs to enhance physical pleasure towards orgasm and demand that the culture of their day call that good, even allowing them to get married? I don't think so.

I prefer not to use the word "gay". Besides the fact that the word's original meaning had nothing to do with sexual preference, it labels a very nebulous group of people as shameful and sinful (according to conservative Christians) and as oppressed and righteous (according to liberals). It also discriminates against more unusual sexual orientations such as feelings of attraction to animals or feelings of attraction to minors. Do you believe that homosexuality is a good thing, but bestiality and pedophilia are wrong? If you were truly a moral relativist, you wouldn't make that distinction. Making that distinction makes your opinion a "moral authority." And, since you claim that there is no Moral Authority in the first place, your shaking of the finger at Christians who do have a Moral Authority and call homosexual acts wrong based on what that Authority has revealed, is only an expression of your opinion, which I don't recognize as a moral authority and is essentially meaningless.

Nowhere does the Bible condemn feelings of sexual attraction. When Jesus said that if a man looks on a woman with lust that he has already committed adultery, I am sure He wasn't referring to the feeling of "Isn't she beautiful," but to thoughts of "I want to have sexual contact with her, let me see how I can accomplish that." When the Bible condemns homosexuality or any other kind of sexual contact for that matter, it refers to the actual act, not the initial feeling. So I make a distinction between what is called sexual orientation and sexual acts. Sexual orientation simply determines what arouses a person sexually. I bet that is different for each person. What you actually act out with your sexual orientation, that is where good or bad are determined based on what our Creator has determined and not on the finite opinions of men.

SKEPTIC: Your response pretty much makes my point. You tie yourself in knots in an attempt to justify your intolerance. When you assert that gay relationships are no different than bestiality or pedophilia, you expose your true feelings about gays. You can claim that you don't hate them, but that kind of rhetoric doesn't qualify as any kind of love in my book. You claim you don't hate gays, and yet you hang a sign outside your Christian faith that says, "Gays need not apply," and I'm pretty sure that you also believe that an "unrepentant" gay person won't be admitted to heaven. Personally, I think it's Christians who need to "repent" for their bigotry and intolerance against their fellow human beings who happen to to be gay. But I'm not holding my breath on that score.

In regard to David and Jonathan's "friendship" in the Bible - I guess no one will ever know for sure what went on in the privacy of their room, but when David says of Jonathan in II Samuel 1:26, "Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women," I think it's not unreasonable to wonder about the nature of their relationship.

As far as lust goes, I'm in favor of it. The biblical injunction against it is ridiculous. If men and women didn't lust for each other, the human race would soon die out. Is that what you want?

One final question for you: What do Christians think gays should do? Stop being gay? That's like asking someone to stop being left-handed. Now I know that most Christians believe that people aren't born gay - that it's a choice. Of course, they have to believe that, otherwise they'd have to admit that God created them gay, and that would blow their mind. I also know that Christians believe that God can remove the gayness from a person, an idea which is ridiculous on its face. Just ask Super Christian Ted Haggard, who still struggles with his sexuality. Is he really better off now, having hidden and suppressed his true sexual feelings all his life?

Here's an idea: maybe Christians could just start to accept and respect their fellow travelers on this planet and stop trying to impose their two-thousand-year-old code of morality on everyone else. (Hey, I can dream, can't I?)

PREACHER: Again I see you like to use that "gay" word. It is used to separate out a group of people that have a particular way of feeling called sexual orientation, who may or may not actually act on it. It is a dastardly word that stigmatizes people and puts them in a contrived minority so they can be victims of the rest of society. I make a distinction between two groups: those who simply have a physical attraction to the same sex but use self-control versus those who commit immoral sexual acts and demand that everyone else call what they are doing good. (I make the same distinction with heterosexuals, too: married couples vs. flagrant adulterers.)

The first group I welcome with open arms to join the Christian faith. I respect their willingness to be honest about their feelings and would stand up for them against the shameful castigation that the majority in society might throw at them. The second group may come to my church, too. However, I wouldn't allow them to be leaders in my church, especially with the youth. That is because I believe that the homosexual lifestyle is immoral, based on the moral Authority, not just my opinion, that I trust. (You certainly realize that "hating gays" is not a Christian monopoly. I know plenty of Moslems, Buddhists, and even atheists who find homosexuality disgusting and wrong.)

From your comments, it seems to me that you place great value in sexual fulfillment. You seem to make it the apex of life, as if it were the ultimate good. I would even go so far to say that you have made it your "god". I suppose that anyone who makes sex their "god" would want to have that completely fulfilled. And, that would include being able to satisfy those irrational feelings that we call sexual orientation. Your sexuality then becomes your primary identity. Instead of being something you do, it becomes you.

SKEPTIC: Sex is my god? Well, I have been known to utter "Oh my God!" when having particularly good sex, so you may be on to something.

PREACHER: For me, the sexual experience spices up the marriage relationship between a man and a woman. Otherwise, it is nothing but a cheap thrill. It seems to me that those who insist that fulfilling and acting out their sexual orientation as the greatest good have made a cheap thrill the central meaning and purpose of life. When you think that way, it will be assumed that every endearing relationship must have a dominant sexual element to it. How absurd!

SKEPTIC: Okay, first of all - a cheap thrill is better than no thrill at all. But no one is talking about sex being "the central meaning and purpose of life." It's Christianity which has elevated the subject to sacred status and written a bunch of rules to be followed and declared that if you don't follow the rules, you're immoral and are going to burn in hell forever.

PREACHER: It is clear to me that proper expression of and about sexuality is intricately connected with morality. I say that homosexual acts are immoral. You say that my intolerant position on homosexual acts is immoral. I base my position on what the Bible teaches (it happens to be my final moral Authority), the opinions of the majority of humanity, and the "what if everyone did it" test. (Of course, some of your ecological extremists might applaud the decimation of the human population.) You have your opinion, the opinions of the gay community and some liberal thinkers, and the results of some controversial research done by the gay community.

Now, you claim to be a moral relativist, and don't claim to have any moral authority, nor do you set yourself up as a moral authority. It seems to me that you have abdicated your right to call anything immoral or wrong. You are able to express your opinion about whether you like something or not, but you cannot speak with authority and say that anything is really right or wrong. Hence, your complaining about my intolerance towards "gays" is meaningless, a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

But I will keep my peace with the "gay community" as long as they don't demand that the rest of us call their lifestyle good and insist that we should emulate it, support it with our taxes, and teach it to our children.

SKEPTIC: So in conclusion, you don't like the word "gay" because you've assigned some sort of nefarious special meaning to it; my opinion is meaningless and yours is the only one that matters because you got it from The Magic Book; you're cool with gay people as long as they don't "do the deed" or spread the gay virus to the young 'uns, and it's okay that Christians hate gays because lots of other people hate gays, too.

But I guess maybe I should be grateful that so many good Christian folk are willing to take upon themselves the thankless task of telling the rest of us how to live our lives.

So I'll make you a deal...

I will keep my peace with the "Christian community" as long as they don't demand that the rest of us call their lifestyle good and insist and that we should emulate it, support it with our taxes, and teach it to our children.

Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live

SKEPTIC: Halloween has come and gone, and the witches have all gone back home.

Now I don't know a whole lot about witches. I know that the Wicked Witch of the West was not a very nice person, but that Glinda, the Witch of the North, was beautiful and kind. But I'm a little confused as to the Christian view of witches. I know that the Bible says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18). I know that Pat Robertson and Sarah Palin apparently believe in witches. And I know that the Puritans were instrumental in bringing about the Salem Witch Trials.

But I was stunned to read recently of the atrocities being carried out in Africa in the name of Jesus. Christian pastors, taking the Biblical exhortation to heart, have been implicated in the torture and murder of hundreds of children who had been accused of being witches. I'm having trouble getting my head around that.

PREACHER: If you want to know more about witches you could probably even meet and interview someone who at least calls himself or herself that in many parts of the world. There would be a great variety, including those that would be considered benevolent, and those that would be considered malevolent by the various cultures that they live in. But, one thing they all would have in common would be their claim that they can manipulate the spiritual world to make things happen in the physical world. The "good" witches might be able to improve the weather or heal sickness, while the "bad" witches would be blamed for illnesses and natural disasters. The reason that the Bible condemns witchcraft is that it attempts to bypass God and tries to employ the cooperation of other spiritual forces to get what is wanted.

In seminary I was privileged to study under a sociology professor who was quite an expert on traditional African religions. He said that it was very common when there was a sickness or some other mishap in a village that it would be blamed on witchcraft. Many times vulnerable children or women would be picked out as the witch causing the problem. So, their deplorable application of Exodus 22:18 has mostly to do with their traditional world view. Here we have the terrible results of syncretism. They just added Jesus on to their old religious system without changing their core values. From the article you refer to, it says that the churches had proliferated so fast that the leadership in the organizations had not kept up with what kind of people were pastoring the churches. When there is poor teaching of Christian doctrines and principles, it is very possible for even pastors to have decided to be "Christians" only for material gain, kind of like the cargo cults in Papua New Guinea except with much more tragic results.

Yes, I am stunned and sickened, too by the atrocities that these pastors committed. As a Christian who believes in the absolute value of these children who have become their victims, I encourage all the church in that part of Africa to wake up to this terrible problem and put an end to it as soon as possible. And, I am sure that the real Christians there are already working hard to help the situation.

SKEPTIC: I can certainly understand how African witchcraft culture plays into the current atrocities, but is there not some sort of heirarchy within the church or a government authority to step in and put a stop to it? Unfortunately, the problem with the government, as seen in the Nightline videos above, is that they claim that accusing a child of being a witch is illegal "unless you have proof" that the child is a witch. Well, gee, that's helpful. I wonder exactly what kind of proof is required. Maybe we should employ the Monty Python method.

The heros in this story are those people who are providing safe havens for these child victims. But where is the voice of the church, either in Africa or elsewhere? Where is the condemnation and outrage? I don't see it.

The problem, of course, is that the Christian religion, with its beliefs in witches, evil spirits, demons, and other supernatural boogeymen, is a perfect fit for scam artists who see an opportunity to marry Christianity with traditional African beliefs for their own personal gain.

PREACHER: Well, I am glad that you realize that African witchcraft culture plays into the current atrocities. Unfortunately the government authorities in the country (Nigeria) where this is happening are having so many problems and many times are so corrupt that they aren't able to even keep up with a lot of the violence and injustice that is happening on a daily basis in their country. Since a lot of these churches are independent, they have no church hierarchy to answer to, or the church hierarchy if it exists at all is much like the government, inadequate and corrupt. I frequently read the reports from missionaries who actually live in this part of the world, and realize that chaos and ignorance reigns everywhere most of the time. There is a lot more bad stuff going on all the time in this area besides these pastors who have mistakenly accused children of witchcraft and tortured them. Then, Nigeria is one of the better countries to be in. I suppose when you are living in an environment where atrocities have become the norm, you just become numb to it. That may explain the apparent lack of condemnation and outrage. However as the news spreads - the date of the news article is rather recent - there will more appropriate reactions and action. I have included this link. It certainly is a start.

I am sure that many of those heroes who are providing safe havens for these children are Christians. There probably would be some good non-religious folks like you, too. I disagree that the problem is the Christian religion. The problem is the greed and ignorance of men. You certainly would disagree too if I said that your hallowed atheism with its belief in molecules-to-man evolution was the problem behind the mass murders committed by the command of notorious fascist and communist dictators in the twentieth century because they also believed what you believe.

SKEPTIC: You seem to have divided the Christian world into "real" Christians and "fake" Christians, and whenever a Christian does anything really bad (like torture and murder) he gets moved into the "fake" column. But I'm assuming that all Christian pastors (even these African pastors) preach the same core Christian message, i.e. the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and the atonement that it provides. But then, maybe that's the problem. When you've got a religion that celebrates the torture and murder of its central figure and whose most important icon is a torture device, maybe we shouldn't be all that surprised when some pastors go off the deep end.

By the way, I'm still not clear if you personally believe in witches or not.

PREACHER: You seem to think that Christians invented torture. You certainly know that torture has been practiced all over the world from far back in history in almost every culture. If anything, Christians have been in the forefront of alleviating torture. Those pastors were doing what was just common practice in their culture, not getting their inspiration from the gruesomeness of the cross.

You also seem to be setting yourself up as a moral authority over the Christian religion. I don't think your world view qualifies you to be a moral authority. You can't even prove that torture or witchcraft is really wrong or not.

When you can meet a witch on the street, it isn't necessary to "believe in" them. Whether they have supernatural powers or not is another question. I don't think they really do.

SKEPTIC: Well, no, I don't think Christians invented torture, and I'm not setting myself up as a moral authority on anything. I'm perplexed as to why you assume such things, unless perhaps you're reading a different blog entirely.