Oy. I'll only add one thing about your grandparents. They already know. Despite the DADT arrangement, they're fully cognizant.
I had the same agreement with my family. I even did Nana's holiday card completely separately from the others to be sure I was the only one that signed it. The last phone conversation I had with her before she died when she admonished me to come back and visit as she did every time we spoke, she add, "And bring your 'friend' with you!" Yes, I heard the quotes around the word.
Good luck, and follow Aaron's advice. Eventually either you do get closer or you get comfortable with the distance and knowledge you've leaned in as far as you can and the rest is them choosing to move to you (or not).

Watered down Christianity my ass. I know conservatives have no respect for progressive Christians, but really? Believing that God loves everyone equally and that we all have a right to be treated with respect is "watered down"?

Being a Christian ally doesn't pay well.

"He says he just struggles with same-sex attraction, and wants to live as much like Jesus as possible. As far as I can tell, this means either a life of prayerful celibacy, or with a supportive wife."

What about his twelve boyfriends?

Oy vay. I don't know if I could stop myself from grabbing and shaking him while yelling, "Are you crazy?!? Why don't you want a real relationship with someone you really love?!" I know it would make it worse, but that's all I can think of when I deal with closeted guys,

I grew up in a fundamentalist household. I grew up to be an atheist, feminist, Planned Parenthood-volunteer, black-sheep. Things were very tense between my family and me, and I felt (feel?) horrible about my siblings still trapped in that situation. My therapist at the time told me that all I could do for my family was "set an example of a different way to live". I thought it was bullshit for a long time until my younger siblings started making life decisions more like mine than what my parents wanted. And I still don't know if my therapist was full of shit, but living my own life well was probably the best I could do anyway. It's really really hard to separate yourself emotionally from a fucked up family for whom you can do nothing, really, to help. My utmost sympathies to the LW.

Isn't there a theology which teaches that the reason we have 12 tribes instead of 1 is because Abraham FAILED the test? That he was willing to sacrifice his son was a failure of faith rather than a testament to it?

"Who wants to sit around being awkwardly civil with people who don’t accept you because they love their unseen god more than their children?"

One of the many pearls in this response. I usually don't like it when Dan turns his column and podcast over to guests, because they are often a letdown compared to Dan, but this letter from Aaron was just wonderful

The only mild bit of cross-examination I have is "there for him, no matter what" - exactly how far does that extend? For instance, should YB take it as far as opposite-sex marriage, would LW thereby be required to accept a request to be a member of the wedding party?

Calling it watered down Christianity just shows how indoctrinated TGB still is. He might see fundamentalism as Christianity on steroids, but it's actually a radical offshoot and perversion of true Christianity. Fundies latch onto only those verses they choose and ignore others as well as the entirety of the message.

Thank you Dan.
Thank you Aaron.

@2 That will never stop us from being allies, though. God's love is universal, we're resilient and committed, and you know what else?

I've come to the conclusion that secular humanists/ethical atheists are God's highest creation. Created in God's image, they function with His love completely automatically, needing neither threats nor inducements of some spiritual realm or afterlife. In rejecting God and/or the overt practice of religion, they take full responsibility for their own duty to practice loving care of their fellow man and to contribute to community. In so doing, they become part of God's heart on Earth, although they'd never see it that way.

God doesn't care, either. There's no user license required for His love. It's gifted to the world. No copyright, no registered trademark, no brand name, no royalties.

Meanwhile, for every decent, love-filled Christian like you, Kim, there's some selfish prick running around with a holier-than-thou boner, trying to tell others how to live. We should celebrate others' rejection of such pompous hypocrisy, and if it tars the word Christianity in the process, that's far better than validating some Christofascist prick.

Keep your heart in the struggle for Equality, Peace and Integrity. Never let the words of those who have lost all respect for religion dissuade you from the love and Light you carry. It's not important.

I came here to say what @2 & @10 said.

Affirming Christianity is merely a different way of interpreting a complex and paradoxical text written in ancient languages and different times. It's as intellectually, morally, spiritually (in)consistent as any other type of Christianity.

As wise man once told me

"When you stand before God there are no attorneys, no theologians, just you and God naked and exposed."

@2, @10, @13. Agreed. That line pissed me off.

@ 2 - There's a story line from the web comic Something Positive that you ought to read. It starts here:

http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp10042…

and ends on Oct 19, 2006. You should also read the author's commentary below that last comic.

"Real" Christianity is fundamentalist. Paul and the Church were the creators of the religion. Only very recently have some Christians stopped following their dicta.

But Christianity (or any religion) isn't the problem here; authoritarianism is. Religious texts (usually mistranslated) are merely the excuses for being cruel to people you see as "other". Abraham has nothing to do with homophobia.

@17 - that's simply historically wrong. There is plenty of writing on the rise of fundamentalist Christianity as a new movement in the 20th century. The idea, e.g., that the bible is to be taken literally, word-by-word, as the word of god, so essential to fundamentalism, is entirely alien to both Catholicism and mainline protestantism.
Obviously the church - both Catholic and protestant - has often been reactionary. But not fundamentalist, no.

Oh shit, I am about to get into trouble again. Meh, what's new?

Christianity, Judaism, Islam. They definitely have one thing in common. Kill the fags. If you do not subscribe to this, then you are guilty of the "cherry picking" accusations. The fundamentalists are right you know. There is no out in any of the texts. These are commands.

In case you are wondering, I am a gay atheist. I don't believe a absolute, single, barking-mad word of this bullshit, but I am telling you, despite the wonderful "not-all-like-that"-ists, they are on solid ground.

@12 -- Aw, shucks. That's the nicest thing a Christian has ever said about me and my fellow atheists. Seriously. Would that more Christians felt that way.

I think that’s a fine way to perpetuate watered-down Christianity.

Claiming that your parents' faith is "true Christianity" and all other sects are "watered down Christianity" is as ridiculous as claiming that your parents' congregation are the only "true Christians" and all other denominations (liberal or not) are "going to hell Christians." Like 10 says, that is a hell of a lot of indoctrination there to believe that all the non-condemning people can't be real, true Christians like your family are.

Jesus was a radical. He advised giving all your wealth to the poor as the only hope of getting into heaven and shrugged off people who said that was too difficult. He hung out with lepers and tax collectors and prostitutes. Leave aside the later "of course we can make this palatable for the religion of the Roman state, the Roman state is awesome" additions and look at what he actually preached: that crazy revolutionary would not be welcomed into any fundamentalist church if he showed up talking like that today. (And I type that as an agnostic.)

@19: That's bullshit. It's true of the radical morons who hijacked Christianity a while back, but that doesn't mean the people who believe Jesus meant the things he said are some kind of "watered down" Christians. If anything, the opposite--over the millennia, Christianity picked up (i.e., got watered down by) all sorts of cultural crap that was floating around; that's not what Christianity is about.

@Dan: So... with twelve other men and dead by 33 then?

Junia wasn't a man, dude. And I'd be surprised if she was the only female one, though I guess she might have been.

Oops. Previous link should have gone here, to the initial discussion of Junia (a.k.a. "Junias").

Pretty nice #12.

#22/23 - Junia/Junias is not one of the twelve original apostles. He/she is mentioned only by St. Paul, and obviously became a follower after Jesus' death, just like Paul.

Looks like you're right. Thanks for the correction.

@10 is exactly right about the LW's residual fundamentalism if he sees NALT Christianity as watered down. He apparently shares the fundie view that anyone who doesn't share his family's version of the faith is backslidden.

NALT Christians don't post Bible verses and self congratulatory memes on their social media, they don't plaster fish symbols on their cars, they don't pray ostentatiously at restaurants when the food arrives (and then tip the server badly). They work on changing themselves for the better and not trying to change others. They may be less visible as Christians than the fundies, but shouldn't living the teachings of Jesus (i.e. Love your neighbor) be more about actions than words?

@27: NALT Christians don't post Bible verses and self congratulatory memes on their social media, they don't plaster fish symbols on their cars, they don't pray ostentatiously at restaurants when the food arrives (and then tip the server badly).

Exactly. NALT Christians, in other words, don't act in flagrant disregard to Matthew 6:1

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven."

Jesus goes on at some length telling his followers that noisy, public displays of religiosity are bullshit. For some reason, fundies think that only people who ignore what Jesus directs are "real Christians."

@1 Touching story. Now I have something in my eye.

@7: Not sure about the tribes bit, but there's an interpretation (one I personally subscribe to) that says Abraham failed the test. Elsewhere in Scripture, people argue with God and try to change His mind about issues of justice. In Genesis 18:23-32, Abraham convinces God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah if His messengers are able to find just ten good men among the cities, since Abraham makes the very good point that the righteous shouldn't be punished along with the wicked. In the Book of Jonah, the titular character argues with God over the fate of Nineveh, claiming that the city SHOULD be destroyed for the wickedness of its citizens. (God doesn't buy that argument; He teaches Jonah a passive-aggressive lesson in sympathy and spares the Ninevites after they repent.)

My take on the issue is this: God wants us to be godly. Unlike angels, which are incapable of evil (in Judaic theology), we have the capacity both for tremendous righteousness and unthinkable depravity. We are told to choose good, to praise our Maker and respect His creations, to treat humanity with justice, mercy, and love, to leave the world a better place than we found it. It is not enough, however, for us to be good just because we are told so; we must truly believe in the good that we do. And what better way to test the sincerity of that belief than to be forced to either defend or abandon it? It is difficult enough to defy mortal authority in the pursuit of justice; how much harder must it be to argue with one's omnipotent creator in defense of what is right!

@ 10, 12,16, 18, 21 & 27. Yes and thanks. So much more I can (and often do) say, but hearing it from you is great.

That book is cheaper at Powell's on line.

May I take a moment to offer that bigots are not good people, regardless of how many nice things they do for the people who look like them, think like them, worship like them, or love like them? Bigotry is a disqualifier from being a good person. You may as well say that child abusers are good people because they leave the rest of us alone.

That's right, mofos. I equated bigots with child abusers. In reality, they do abuse children by teaching them to hate.

Am I the only one who wonders how many of the Christians that battle "homosexual tendancies" aren't actually gay (as in not exclusively attracted to the same sex)? Because there are christians out there who are attracted to the opposite sex, but who also have same-sex urges. For what it is worth, I think this is the scenario that the bible is actually condemning, a type of extramarital affiars known at the time to be an issue, particularly in certain situations--not homosexuality.

Anyways, I would at least be aware of the possibility that this brother (and anyone else similarly situated) is more bi than gay and that his "struggle with homosexual urges" is basically just the normal struggle with monogomy. It seems like a great way for a bi christian to transform regular old adultery (probably not going to get a ton of sympathy) into a holy struggle against homosexuality (probably going to get a whole lot more sympathy).

I always wonder the same about people who say that being gay is a choice. I don't think that anyone who is truly 100% straight could believe that, but I see how someone who is attracted to the opposite sex and who ignores (or tries to ignore) their same-sex urges could come to believe that gay people are people who have simply fallen prey to those urges.

@ SeattleKim - While I can sympathize with your situation, I don't actually agree with you. I believe that moderate (read: sane) Christians are in a very real way the authors of their own misery.

If moderate Christians made themselves conspicuous that would solve Christianity's PR problem in short order. If, for example, moderate Methodist allies had boycotted their church in droves in response to the defrocking of Frank Schaefer (he was defrocked at the national level) that sort of thing would get headlines. And it would send a very clear message. But that didn't happen, did it?

Most often, when I see someone claiming to be a NALT Christian it is as a preface to tone policing an abused member of a minority group for failing to preform the correct verbal contortions. And I have seen that kind of bullshit over and over and over again. In fact, barring a few select communities, I don't know that I have ever seen an abused LGBT kid vent about the abuse he or she endured at the hands of Christians without at least one "not like that" Christian coming out of the woodwork to concern troll the victim into silence.

And you know what? Being on the receiving end of that feels like a difference in degree, not a difference in kind. In fact, you might even say that one feels like a watered down version of the other.

Personally, I'd like to see the good, decent Christians of this world (and I know there are a lot of you out there) take a different tack and make themselves conspicuous in both their Christianity and their disapproval of how other Christians have behaved. The phrase "no good Christian would treat someone that way" could do wonders. Especially if paired with an offer of support without condemnation for the victim. It would be good for bigot Christians who were listening/reading to hear another Christian disagree with them. And more importantly, it would provide comfort for the victim.

That's what Jesus would have done.

@35: "Am I the only one who wonders how many of the Christians that battle "homosexual tendancies" aren't actually gay (as in not exclusively attracted to the same sex)? Because there are christians out there who are attracted to the opposite sex, but who also have same-sex urges. "

I doubt as many of them are bisexual as you suggest.

They may "love" them in a platonic sense, but If they were attracted to their wives, they wouldn't be conflicted by "satan" and "backsliding" and be leading such hollow lives.

The words are at odds with their behavior. Being bisexual wouldn't make them miserable married to a woman, as these persons are from all indications.

"Anyways, I would at least be aware of the possibility that this brother (and anyone else similarly situated) is more bi than gay and that his "struggle with homosexual urges" is basically just the normal struggle with monogomy. It seems like a great way for a bi christian to transform regular old adultery (probably not going to get a ton of sympathy) into a holy struggle against homosexuality (probably going to get a whole lot more sympathy)."

That would make more sense if he was out there trying to fuck women as well, but they're not appealing to him. What you say is possible, but Occam's Razor suggests that unless there's unstated attempts to cheat on his wife with women as well, he's gay.

What great advice. I'm buying my copy of Rapture Practice right now.