"The depends on what your definition of IS is."~ President Bill Clinton

Does Christianity teach that homosexuality is a sin? It depends who you ask.

Wait a minute... I thought we were talking about ISLAM! Read more!In the minority, you have the folks who take the Bible and, well... I suppose they take the Bible's teaching on the subject to be their personal marching orders to fight homosexuality. Apparently they think it is good to well... you can see for yourself if you are so inclined: www.godhatesfags.com.
On the complete other end of the spectrum you find the Metropolitan Community Church. These folks have spelled out very clearly their interpretation of what the Bible says about homosexuality. They believe that the Bible's teachings against homosexual practices are commonly twisted and misunderstood and that they are ultimately on par with the Bible's legal teachings found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy... not at all relavent in today's day and age.
The vast majority of those who call themselves Christians, however, would agree that homosexuality, to one degree or another, is a serious sin. Very short essay on the topic here.

How about the issue of abortion ... take that up a notch to the cold blooded murder of a doctor who performed abortions by a former minister. (Story here.)

What are we to make of the huge amount of varience between those who call themselves Christians? And how then do we define what Christianity itself is? How can we attempt to discuss such a large force in our world (the Christian faith) with this lack of agreement?

I suggest that the only way to do so is to speak about such a thing as it is evidenced. That is to say that Christianity is defined, for the sake of practical discussion, by the actions of it devotees as a whole. And when conflicting actions arise between said devotees, you must not work too hard to ignore the unavoidable weight that the actions of the large majority carries. Between the actions of the majority and an even more reliable resource, history... we can come to a reasonable definition of such things for practical discussion.

Unfortunately, we have no crystal ball that will shows us the final definition of things, and so our definitions will always paint with too broad of a brush, but such a thing is completely unavoidable without going in circles trying to account for all exceptions to the general rule.

And all of this is to get to the point of the entry... a response to Heather Ann's comment in an earlier post that warns that we should not "judge Islam on the merits of the radicals, unless we're also going to judge Christianity and America on the merits of its radicals. That ain't a pretty picture."

I agree that judging a group by the actions of a few is a very dangerous thing to do. And I use the word dangerous because I think that doing so leaves far too much room for manipulation and twisting to form a definition that strengthens one's own world view.

Instead, how about we define a thing by what it is evidenced to be. We should judge America based on the actions of most (or the lack of action). We are a self-obsorbed nation. We are obsessed with sex, unrealistic body images, and money. And we have the best thing going in terms of safety, education, opportunity, and freedom in the entire world. That is a good way to define us. The generalities that I've useda are not ALWAYS true... but it is a good place to start from.

Heather Ann wrote, "Do you think that every Christian in the world is up for bombing abortion clinics? Most aren't, and most Muslims aren't happy about the suicide bombings either."

My answer: No. Not every Christian in the world supports the bombing of abortion clinics. For further clarification, let me say that neither do I believe most Christians support such actions. I can even go a step further and say with confidence that very very few Christians do. And how would I make such claims? I would look at the evidence. I look at the actions (including physical and verbal statements and underlying belief systems held) of the large majority. In so doing, any reasonable person can see that no... Christianity, as a whole ... and as it stands today, is not a religion that is a proponant of the murder of people who disagree with important tenants of their faith, including but not limited to doctors who carry out abortions. That is not a difficult call to make. Open your eyes and its obvious. (and all this from a guy who is not a huge fan of Christiandom!)

Heather Ann, did you read the second article that you listed in your previous comment? Do you really think that Salim Mansur ("an associate professor of political science at the University of Western Ontario"), Shadi Hamid ("a master's candidate in Arab studies at Georgetown University; he spent the past year as a Fulbright fellow in Amman, Jordan"), and Asra Nomani [female] ("a former Wall Street Journal reporter") are a good sampling of mainstream Islam? What planet are you living on? The vast majority of Muslims are poor and uneducated. They are very prone to manipulation and brain-washing by leaders in the Muslim faith. Read between the lines of the other guest in the article Shaker Elsayed ("the imam of Dar al Hijrah in Northern Virginia, one of the largest mosques on the East Coast") .... don't you find it interesting how he tiptoes around the subject of suicide bombing in Israel? Ugh... makes me want to puke! His sort is representative of most of Islam.

Asra Nomani, the type of person who is in the severe minority, is saying the same thing that I said in my entry, "Sadly, he [Osama bin Laden] speaks for a lot of people, and he represents what I think we are facing in our Muslim world, which is an ideological terrorism ... that's why it's incumbent upon us as moderate Muslims to respond to this in a nonviolent way, and challenge word for word every statement that they put out in the name of Islam." She goes on to applaud a recent stand that a moderate Muslim group took against "the rhetoric of intolerance and fundamentalism that is trying to take over our world." Yes, exactly. But her words are a bit more ... um... optimistic than I am. I don't think that the intolerant fundamentalists are trying to take over their world, the Muslim world. No, they have already done so. That is why Asra Nomani says, "we have had to stand up now and take back the faith."

Take back?

Who took it? Those now in power. Those who's followers now make up the majority (as evidenced by what the Muslim acts of terror around the globe every day).

I shared my neighborhood very peacefully with an extended family of Pakistani Muslims for over eight years. They were first generation immigrants to the United States. They were very poor. They wore traditional Pakistani garb, went to their mosque several times each week, and sent their sons back to the old country for "schooling" when they became of age. There is no doubt in my mind that their mosques hold weapons and that their members of their family would gladly give their lives to progress the Islamic agenda... namely, the destruction of Jews and Christians. These neighbors of ours had children who laughed and played in our backyard... but a larger than life painting of Osama bin Laden also hung in their living room.

I remember a conversation once with a young man who was very near to my own age. Our conversation began as we discussed the gift of food that he and his family had given to my wife and I. As our conversation continued, we talkedbout his faith and religious practices. I asked him if any of his family members had ever left Islam. His nervously laughed and looked away.
"Nobody", I asked.
"Oh no... definately not.", he replied as his face began to show some discomfort about the subject.
"Nobody, out of all your family members here in America or back home have ever left the faith or became Christians or anything like that?" I continued. I had heard of Muslims becoming Christians and I was trying to find out what sort of reaction such a convert could expect from their family.
"No... nobody. They would be killed."
I almost choked on the food he had given to me. "Wuh... huh? What did you say?"
"They would be killed."
"Really?"
"Yes. The Kohran teaches us that it would be better to kill them than let them live a blasphemous life against Allah."

I pressed him for some more info, asking if he knew anybody who had ever been killed for such a reason. He said that he hadn't had any personal friends or family killed, but that he knew it happened... not here in the states so much, but definately back in Pakistan.

.....

Wow.

.....

Unfortunately.... based on my experiences, what I see in the news every day (large scale acts of terror and large scale violent 'protests'), and what I do not see in the news every day (vast numbers of Muslims crying out at against such acts)... I believe that my conversation with my neighbor is much more representative of mainstream Islam than what people like Shadi Hamid and Asra Nomani have to say.

With all that said, there is certainly a difference between something like the Koran (or Christ's teachings) and its followers. I make no claim to be able to speak with any authority whatsoever about the teachings of the Koran. To be honest, I don't really care! The teachings of the book dont' effect me one bit. The actions of its followers, however, do. I feel complete liberty to question the actions of others. Yes, even Muslims... just as one would do well to question deplorable actions of those claiming to be Christians (or any other religion for that matter).

And when the actions of the majority begin to become so clear and pervasive as the acts of the Muslim population, it is not too far a leap in logic to begin to ask with sincerity... what sort of religion is that?