Melissa Fryrear, the clownish so-called ex-lesbian from Focus on the Family who cakes on make-up, pretends to have crushes on red headed men (although we’ve never had a report of an actual date) and admits that she is “not the sharpest knife in the drawer,” has changed the term “ex-gay” to “post gay” in Focus on the Family’s latest newsletter.
In the letter, she describes the process of becoming post-gay:
“Thus, for any feeling, thought, belief, identity, behavior or action that is not characteristic of and resembling of the Person of Jesus Christ, God’s intention is to change it so that it is.” (sounds like brainwashing)
Of course, Fryrear admits that her ministry has the potential to cause great damage, saying, “It is a process – often a very long, difficult and painful process.”
Actually, it is a destructive dead end. The people who throw their money at charlatans like Fryrear do go through the painful process described, only to find that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. This exacerbates the pain and can lead to depression and self-destructive behavior.
I’m not sure why loneliness, pain, celibacy, depression and thoughts of suicide qualify as “post-gay.”
From Romans 8: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” Apparently, according to your so-called article, God is into brainwashing.
RT, the quotation from Romans 8 says nothing about God brainwashing his followers or turning them into automatons with no individuality or analytical thought.
Nor does Romans 8 declare God or his Son to be clones of James Dobson, Alan Chambers, or Melissa Fryrear. The latter persons exemplify greed, egocentrism, and worldliness. Fryrear, in particular, promotes a materialistic view of women, a view that defines femininity according to one’s makeup and one’s subservience to men. I find that view sadly lacking in self-respect.
Even if Romans did dictate that Christians become unthinking robots, it wouldn’t matter to me: Various passages of the Bible are historically or scientifically inaccurate. The various books that are now called the Bible were written by numerous flawed individuals, and they were edited, shortened, and creatively re-translated by many more flawed individuals whose knowledge of history and geology was limited and subjective.
Like any book or anthology, the Bible must be read with an open, informed and cautious mind. People who are familiar with early Christian philosophers and long-standing Christian tradition should already be well aware of this.
You are correct, it does not declare that God or His Son be clones of anyone. It does declare that James Dobson, Melissa Fryrear, Alan Chambers, Wayne Besen, Michael Airhart, and I be clones of His Son. But, of course, since you discredit the entire Bible, there’s not point in bringing that up.
RT, I don’t discredit the entire Bible; I reject your interpretation of “conform” and “likeness.”
I understand; those ARE difficult words. I don’t remember interpreting them for you. They’re found in most English dictionaries. If you’re referring to the word clone, I got that one from you.
Real Truth says…
“since you discredit the entire Bible”
Are we to understand that you credit the entire Bible?
As in the idea that you think of it as having been written (interpreted VIA God) without error, translated and retranslated without error, and compiled and recompiled without error?
If this is what you believe, then say so. But if it is what you believe, then you have a lot of explaining to do.
I have always read that to mean that we should be more “Christlike”, as much as possible and that God has a plan set out for each person from birth.
As far as translations go, I don’t believe for a second that Paul, Moses, Isaiah et.al wrote in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic(sp?) AND ENGLISH. So there COULD (most likely) be some mis-translations in the English texts.
just my 2 cents
aj
Doesn’t the prefix ‘post’ in it’s (post)modern applications usally impliy “transcend and include”?Clearly this is not what she means and should stop trying so hard to be hip. I consider myself postqueer, but that means something very different from repenting of my sexual orientation.
Why can’t you just be “queer” then?