To  be clear, even more of my break with the label is my own beliefs not concurring with what I would define as "Christian" in any way, shape or form. However, I am now fairly sure that the extreme language and attitudes of certain segments of Christianity contributed. I simply got sick of being expected by some to defend positions that I, as a Christian at the time, did not hold simply because I was "Christian".

Mendalla

Christians are absolutely ruining it for Christians, that much is obvious. This is why I don't understand why some Christians aren't more vocal in their opposition to fundamentalist positions. One explanation, of course, is that in the ensuing public argument, the plain reading of the bible will favour the fundamentalist.

And that's a really big problem. If your founding text says stupid things, it is impossible to break free from that connection you have with stupid positions, even if you personally don't hold them and take them metaphorically, and especially if you try to dismiss the stupid parts by some criteria that often sounds arbitrary.

I have no doubt that it is hard to be a Christian today who is for equal rights. Just remember that, back when religion had all the power (and even today where it still does), people who held un-Christian opinions often suffered a little bit more than ridicule. 

I think Christianity made its own bed. Now that our kids have grown up exposed to other beliefs and with openly gay friends, we get to see the new reactions to those longtime popular Christian beliefs. If people feel awkward for being a Christian in a time when Christianity is synonymous with bigotry and backwards thinking, good. Christianity has a lot to apologize for, and the awkwardness Christians feel today is nothing compared to how past Christians (and some current ones) have treated others.

Sexuality should be a total non issue, like hair colour or height , and certainly of less concern than health, weight , disability and dietary habits where there are actually a few sane reasons for being aware of the situation. There certainly are vigorously self-identifying "Christians"  who really make an effort to present Jesus as a hateful, vindictive,, vain, ignorant and vengeful nutcase.

Hi Mendalla,

There is no "Christian" reaction just as there is no "American" reaction or "Plumber's" reaction.

To be sure Christians will react just as Americans and Plumbers will react.  To presume that there is only one way all Christians, Americans or Plumbers will react is to operate somewhere on the naive to ignorant fringe.

Christianity is not monolithic with respect to homosexuality just as Americans and Plumbers of all nations hold to a variety of perspectives and beliefs about homosexuality.

I found this article interesting:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/7089/why_jason_collins...

If that is true it is not due to the ignorance of the Collins bashers it is due to those whose thinking can't handle anything more complex than guilt by association.  Christian A says something stupid and Christians B through Z are automatically blamed for permitting that stupidity to define their faith.  Guilt by association is nothing more than naked prejudism.

Should the individual be judged by their own merits or can we condemn them simply for the faults of another?

Turns out that one of the three accussed of obstructing the investigation into the Boston Marathon Bombing is an engineering student.  I'm unaware of any engineering school standing up and condemning the construction of bombs or other incendiaries.  And given the high-jinks of engineering students on University Campuses nearby is it reasonable to conclude that for all the good engineers may have done in the past they tend to hold life in contempt and would comply in building better bombs knowing that they would be used to harm others?

That, I think would be the shoe on the other foot.

Nobody with an ounce of brains is standing up and blaming innocent engineers for criminal activity because of that one engineering student.

A Christian, even a group of Christians gets ugly and suddenly that is the non-ugly Christian's fault and not the prejudism inherent in the observer?

Would you flee just as easily and just as readily from any other association you might have if others only looked at the worst it had to offer and not the best?

Suppose somebody starts listing all the negative things Canadians have done will you distance yourself from being identified as a Canadian?

I guess we all have to live with our decisions.

Here's the thing.

When somebody else makes a decision to tar me with their prejudism that isn't my choice to take responsibility for.  I may not like it, I am not obligated to defend myself against spurious accusations particularly when their is no basis in fact that I am guilty of the behaviour being criticized.

Ironically, Collins as a Christian gets attacked by other Christians who have very strong positions against homosexuality.  Yet Collins is now, due to the prejudice of guilt by association, though to be just as guilty of prejudism against homosexuals because he is a Christian.  While we are at it why don't we point out that some of those same Christians also hate blacks and by association Collins now hates blacks.

Speaking personally, I think that the problem is that so few are actually thinking and many are simply feeling.  And the prejudism flowing in the debate sullies everything it touches and everyone flinging it about.

The important thing, for all of that to continue is that we remember how right "we" are when we engage in that kind of prejudism and how wrong "they" are for doing the same.

Grace and peace to you.

John