An excellent column today in The Miami Herald by Daniel Shoer Roth. He really “gets it” about the harm caused by the ex-gay industry. Thanks to the George Rekers scandal, more people now see it as consumer fraud designed to bilk desperate and vulnerable people. Here is an excerpt from the column:
I’ve heard even more terrifying testimonials. A businessman from a wealthy family whose parents sent him to those who perform exorcisms to rid him of the demon of homosexuality. The appalling thing was that he agreed to go.
But the repression of sexual orientation, feelings and desire never ends well. Sometimes it results in depression, low self-esteem, drug and alcohol abuse, workaholic and compulsive sex.
Sexual orientation cannot be changed, science tells us. By trying, many people lead two lives. On the outside they are like Rekers: they accuse gays of being immoral and incapable of love. On the inside, they are like him, too: escaping to Europe with a sex worker who is 40 years younger to feel loved.
Then come right-wing fanatics who use them as puppets in order to reduce the limited legal protections afforded the gay and lesbian community.
Take, for example, Florida Attorney General and Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill McCollum, who hired Rekers as an “expert” witness against gay adoption.
Yes, Rekers is an expert . . . in hypocrisy.
This issue is not only about gays, because those who are homophobic are bound to reject other minorities, as well. McCollum on Thursday expressed support for the anti-immigrant measures in Arizona. It brings to mind the famous phrase of the German pastor and theologian Martin Niem??ller, an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Socialist./ Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Trade Unionist./ Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Jew./ Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.
I glanced back at Bob’s earlier comments in this thread and found it interesting that he avoided religion (unless I didn’t look close enough), whereas his later comments reveal him to be deeply immersed in Christian delusion. Given that Bob seems to be resisting sexual orientation impulses in himself, wasn’t it disingenuous to initially hide the religious factor? I wonder why he did that. After all, in today’s America we find that opposition to homosexuality in one’s self is usually religion-based. And vocal opposition to homosexuality in others is religion-based virtually 100% of the time.
Bob’s leaving God out of the discussion at the outset is like a Creationist participating in a debate on Evolution without mentioning God (which, BTW, is what “Intelligent Design” is stupidly designed to do).
Richard,
“wasn’t it disingenuous to initially hide the religious factor? I wonder why he did that”
See, I just asked a question and I am now at fault for not giving you my complete intellercual resume up front. Do you require warning labels for Christians here?
Priya states “I have nothing to apologize for”
I printed out your response #96, made notes and was in the process of a point by point response. I’ll answer a few things but I keeping in this tread much longer.
Bob: First, Mary gave consent “I am the Lord’ servant,” Mary answered. “May it be to me as you have said.”.
Priya:Making a general statement that you will serve someone is not a specific consent to be impregnated.
Bob: Cop out. God explained exactly what He was going to do and mary agreed.
Priya: Your god committed rape and adultery.
Bob: This is not you merely “pointing out an inconsistancy. It is clearly you being intentionally provocative, inflammatory and disrespectful.
You were caught unawares.
Priya asks: “Uhuh — tell me, what does it mean to have “fulfilled” the law? Laws are requirements that you do or not do things — how can you claim to “fulfill” the law when you specifically say you’re not obligated to follow it?”
Bob:
Living under the Law required absolute obedience to be right with God. Any infraction means you are not in good standing with God. The requirements are just and we are under judgement for not keeping them.
Since no human can do that the Law served to show how sinful we are. Jesus fullfilling the Law means He both lived a life of complete obedience- He was without sin- and He paid the debt for the sin we owe so we can be
-declared- right before God. We wear Jesus’ righteousness.
Priya writes:
I said “In fact there is just as much biblical “reason” to believe blacks are cursed as there is to believe gays are sinners.
Bob “Only if you are a shoddy Biblical scholar.”.
Priya:
You’re suffering from confirmation bias. You put on your blinders to ignore the direct passages that say blacks are cursed and focus on the indirect ones that imply they are not.
Bob: Wrong again! Read the actual book first. Noah cursed,
not Ham and all his decendents but CANNAN, Ham’s son and
the Cannanites were the people occupying the land when Joshua led the Isrealites in. They were not black and it does not apply to Africans.
Priya says I broke a promise. My actual statement was “You deserve complete answers but alas I cannot spend the time” That is not a moral promise- it was me attenting to be considereate and nice.
Morally speaking, I owe you absolutly nothing and since you are only toying with me, and you demonstrate that you have no intension of taking anything I write as anything but another opportunity to make fun an dinsult my faith, I am not obliged to participate further in this thread.
Ben or anybody,
Do you see Gay liberation as linked to what you would call the God myth. In other words, Is it now necessary to destroy belief in God to advance worldwide Gay liberation?
Honey, don’t you yet understand that the two things have nothing to do with each other? It is all in your mind. You have defined the whole of the Christian faith in terms of this one issue: there are plenty of Christians who have an issue with it, and plenty of Christians that don’t, just like they disagree on graven images, premarital sex, divorce, abortion, trinity vs. unity, transubstantiation vs. whatever it was, faith vs. works, whatever.
Not to mention, as we discussed, all of the people who think Chtristianity is a silly myth. I know YOU don’t, but your insistence that your version of it and The Literal TRruth That Really Is Christianity are one and the same is part of your problem.
Here it is: religion has appropriated the issue of homosexuality. It has proved far more interested in telling people what to do that in reflecting a reality-based (let alone theologically based)view of homosexuality. It has no business, no knowledge, no authority, and no expertise. It just has power, money, and an agenda.
Here’s the deal: let go of homosexuality, religion, and this fag will let go of religion
Bob, if someone told me they didn’t believe in God because of the way Christians treat gays, I would tell them that’s a very poor reason. There are plenty of good reasons for non-belief, but the behavior of Christians is not one of them, in my view. And on the flip side, when Christians condemn atheists by trotting out Hitler and Stalin, they are equally illogical (besides likely being wrong about those two examples). The answer to the question of a god’s existence does not depend upon the behavior of believers.
Having said all that, I think there is one aspect of observing the behavior of Christians today that can help us conclude some things about the writers of the Bible: When I look at the capacity for considerable delusion and superstition within people in today’s world of vastly greater knowledge than in Biblical times, I realize that the level of ignorance and superstition in those days had to have been many orders of magnitude greater.
So…Noah cursed his own grandson, who didn’t actually do anything wrong. What an a*****e.
Bob,
One of the things that I’ve always found fascinating is how people can be so certain of their own religion’s truth, while dismissing others after just a passing glance. I think I know the answer, and it’s found in the old story about how to boil a live frog.
The story has it that if you put a frog into cold water and then slowly raise the temperature, he won’t jump out of the water because he becomes slowly conditioned and doesn’t realize what is happening until he eventually dies. It’s similar with religion. Young children are slowly conditioned to Christian (for example) beliefs through indoctrination and gradually those beliefs become accepted as true. Most of them grow up and eventually die without ever realizing what happened to them through their lives.
If you throw the frog directly into boiling water, he will most likely jump out. It’s similar with adults who are faced with another religion. The vast majority of people immediately realize the beliefs are preposterous and reject them as false or dangerous, and they jump away, just like the frog. If those same people had been indoctrinated into that other religion from early childhood, it is overwhelmingly likely that they would believe it as true.
Bob said “Cop out. God explained exactly what He was going to do and mary agreed.”.
Provide the passage where this happened.
I said “Your god committed rape and adultery.
Bob said “This is not you merely “pointing out an inconsistancy. It is clearly you being intentionally provocative, inflammatory and disrespectful.”.
Its the truth bob, no matter how much you want to deny it. Mary was betrothed to Joseph and that was a marriage contract. Your god violated that contract and committed adultery. God was not married to Mary and it was fornication for him to impregnate her. Your god impregnated Mary without her consent – that’s rape. You’ve said that it was moral for your god to kill innocent people, why would you say the idea that he rapes anyone is offensive given that? If your god has the right to murder innocent people surely he has the right to rape Mary as well. Why do you see something wrong with that unless you determine what is moral based on something beyond and seperate from your god’s mere desires?
I asked “Uhuh — tell me, what does it mean to have “fulfilled” the law? Laws are requirements that you do or not do things — how can you claim to “fulfill” the law when you specifically say you’re not obligated to follow it?”
Bob said “Living under the Law required absolute obedience to be right with God. Any infraction means you are not in good standing with God. The requirements are just and we are under judgement for not keeping them.
Since no human can do that the Law served to show how sinful we are.”.
If no human can be absolutely obedient to the law it is not just to require them to do so. You can’t hold it against someone for being the imperfect being you created them to be – that is unjust.
Bob said “Jesus fullfilling the Law means He both lived a life of complete obedience- He was without sin- and He paid the debt for the sin we owe so we can be
-declared- right before God. We wear Jesus’ righteousness.”.
That’s utter nonsense. If fullfilling the law means living a life of complete obedience and you acknowledge that you can’t do that then it is impossible for you to have fullfilled the law. Someone else can’t be obedient on your behalf, only you can do that. Just as you can’t go into an assault trial and say “Don’t punish Joe for this assault, punish me and absolve him of guilt”, Jesus cannot be punished on your behalf and make it as though you’ve never done wrong.
I said “In fact there is just as much biblical “reason” to believe blacks are cursed as there is to believe gays are sinners.
Bob said “Only if you are a shoddy Biblical scholar.”.
I said “You’re suffering from confirmation bias. You put on your blinders to ignore the direct passages that say blacks are cursed and focus on the indirect ones that imply they are not.
Bob said “Wrong again! Read the actual book first. Noah cursed,
not Ham and all his decendents but CANNAN, Ham’ son and
the Cannanites were the people occupying the land when Joshua led the Isrealites in. They were not black and it does not apply to Africans.”,
I never said it was Ham who was cursed I said it was Canaan. The account in Genesis of Canaan whose curse came about when Ham, Canaan’ father, saw Noah, Ham’ father, drunk and naked. Instead of looking away and covering his father, Ham laughed at him. Hence the curse which caused Canaan’ hair to kink and his skin to darken and condemned him to serve his brothers and his children to serve his brothers’ children to the end of time. Because of stories like this the South chose to believe that slavery was mandated by God.1
1) Wister on Box Turtle Bulletin
There is just as much reason to believe that blacks are cursed as there is to believe gayness is a sin. If you were living back in the times of slavery you’d almost certainly have been arguing that blacks deserved to be slaves. If you were to live in the future when religion will inevitably reject the idea that gayness is a sin you’d be claiming that that idea is shoddy biblical scholarship just like you are saying the idea that blacks are cursed is shoddy biblical scholarship.
Bob said “Priya says I broke a promise. My actual statement was “You deserve complete answers but alas I cannot spend the time” That is not a moral promise- it was me attenting to be considereate and nice.”
And after that you said “If you truly feel you will be completely frustrated if I don’t answer you please let me know and I can work on it over the holiday weekend.”
I replied “Oh, I want to hear your response all right, Bob..” and you responded “I’ll work on it then.”.
So don’t give me this BS that you never promised to respond – you most certainly did.
Morally speaking, I owe you absolutly nothing and since you are only toying with me, and you demonstrate that you have no intension of taking anything I write as anything but another opportunity to make fun an dinsult my faith, I am not obliged to participate further in this thread.”.
That’s a cop-out Bob. You know you can’t defend your position so now you’re making excuses to weasle out of the debate. You’ve not been forthcoming in answering my questions because you can see they lead to exposing the internal inconsistency in your positions. I on the other hand have responded to every one of your points and questions, its obvious I am committed to an honest search for the truth and you are not.
I’ve asked you several times, “If it was your god’ will that you rape and burn to death an innocent baby would that be moral because it was god’ will, or would that still be immoral even though it was god’ will?” and you’ve dodged the question every time. You’ve claimed what is evil is what is outside of god’s will. If that’s the case why are you unwilling to say that it would be moral to do as your god asks in this case? Its because you know morality is not subjective and based merely on what your god wills, its based on harm, innocence and fairness, morality is apart from your god.
You’ve claimed that it was not evil for your god to harden Pharoah’s heart so he wouldn’t let the Israelites go and God could then kill all the innocent Egyptian first born as punishment. If that is not evil, if your god can do whatever he wants with people and its okay, then there is no such thing as evil.
A mother does not have the right to kill her child just because she gave it life. It would be immoral for you to set fire to your pet dog just because you own it. If its immoral for a person to kill an innocent then its immoral for your god to do it. Morality is not subjective, right and wrong are determined by the actions themselves, not who is performing them.
All right, Bob, here’s the deal:
I’ve watched your trolling JAQ off fest for almost a week now, and it’s been completely for naught. You’ve added nothing to any discussion, you’ve introduced no new ideas, but you’ve advanced bigotry in the name of “Just Asking Questions.”
You’re obviously a self-hating little s**t, and I’m truly sorry for that, but not sorry enough to lose an ounce of sleep. You’re boring the hell out of me, and I’m a moderator here, so I get to decide when I’ve been bored enough. Your religious “questions” are lame, your grasp of science is hilarious, and your obvious lack of regard for your own homosexuality (and thus, a part of yourself) is disgusting. Because, you see, your homosexuality is not a sin. It’s just one of many parts of you, and moreover, it’s not about genitals, but about who you might end up devoting your life to. It should be a man. But instead, you’ve decided to let religion a*s rape you to hell and waste your sad life instead of searching for true fulfillment. Again, that sucks, but I’m not personally upset about it, because I’m not that nice.
So here’s the deal: As you’ve been wasting everyone’s time here, you have until 2 PM Central Time tomorrow to get whatever JAQ-ing off out of your system, and then you need to find a new blog to troll, until they get completely jumping-off-a-bridge-to-escape-your-words bored with you. So knock yourself out. But you’ve added nothing. So unless you can make a good case for why I should NOT ban you at 2 PM CST tomorrow, scram.
I don’t think Bob’s going to be back. He knows in his heart his beliefs are illogical even within the framework of his religion so he doesn’t want to examine them too closely and see that.
Richard– your comment (#165) was worth this whole dreary spectacle.
On the same subject, and with a small continuation of what I wrote as well….
Christianity claimed authority, knowledge, expertise, mandate, and relevance on the subject of witchcraft. It knew there were witches, it knew what god thought about it, it had its biblical passages to support that knowledge, it knew how to identify witches, and it certainly knew how to torture and murder the tens or hundreds of thousands of witches that it found according to its authority.
Except that there are not any witches. Minor glitch here.
Christianity claimed authority, knowledge, expertise, mandate, and relevance on the subject of cosmology. The sun circled the earth and that was that. It had to because, well, that’s what they thought, and they already knew that they spoke for god.
Woe be unto you if you actually observed reality and decided otherwise. Galileo and Copernicus, among many others were threatened with torture and death for simply declaring what we now know to be true: that the earth circles the sun.
The French Catholics and the French protestants (Les Huguenots) were murdering each other four hundred years ago over, basically, whether god wanted the Catholics to sing Hymn #103 in Latin, or whether god wanted the Huguenots to sing the same hymn in French. Both absolutely knew god’s intention on this subject, and were willing to murder each other (and anyone else in range) to prove that they were intimate with the mind of the infinite.
It turns out that God is quite fine with the singing of hymns in Malawian, Samoan, and pig Latin.
Christianity claimed authority, knowledge, expertise, mandate, and relevance on the subject of homosexuality, a subject it clearly knows NOTHING about. In the whole of the bible, with the possible exceptions of Jonathan and David and the centurion and his boy slave, there is not one fulfilling, happy, nurturing same sex relationship. not one. Prurient, puritan Paul, may possibly have observed something on the subject–the guy with the un-named thorn in his flesh and a big issue with women– immersed as he was in the Greek and roman worlds of his time, but he didn’t mention it either, and what he did have to say was so vague and ambiguous that only an ideologue from either camp could assert positively that he said anything one way or the other. Abusers of themselves with mankind? I do it all the time, and I still don’t know what it means.
So bob, if you really want to believe that your version of Christianity has authority, knowledge, expertise, mandate, and relevance on the subject of homosexuality, a subject it clearly knows NOTHING about– knock your self out. Be my guest. It’s your life.
But if, in 5 years, or 10 years, or 20 years, you look back on your life and you think “how did I manage to waste so many of the good years of my life believing these f*****g morons”– just remember that there were kindly strangers who tried to lead you out of the darkness, and you were just too (literally) goddamned scared to listen.
Fundamentalism and biblical (or Quranic, or sutric, or anything else) literalism is a disease of the mind and the soul, and there is a cure, but if you are not willing to open your mind and your heart to logic, fact, and experience…
then you will just have to dot in the darkness, clutching the other frightened souls who are locked in there with you, hoping your god of love and compassion doesn’t decide that you are worthy of brining in hell for ever for the sin of disagreeing with him.
Good luck and good bye.
spell check goes to hell.
then you will just have to sit in the darkness, clutching the other frightened souls who are locked in there with you, hoping your god of love and compassion doesn’t decide that you are worthy of burning in hell for ever for the sin of disagreeing with him.
Ben, with regard to witches, read what John Wesley had to say:
“It is true … that the English in general, and indeed most of the men of learning in Europe, have given up all accounts of witches and apparitions as mere old wives’ fables. I am sorry for it, and I willingly take this opportunity of entering my solemn protest against this violent compliment which so many that believe the Bible pay to those who do not believe it. I owe them no such service. … They well know (whether Christians know it or not) that the giving up of witchcraft is in effect giving up the Bible. With my latest breath I will bear testimony against giving up to infidels one great proof of the invisible world; I mean that of witchcraft and apparitions, confirmed by the testimony of all ages.”
– JOHN WESLEY, Journal, 1768
Ben in Oakland,
Thank you for your opening line in #174. But my comment #165 was just elaborating on your reply to Bob in #164: “Honey, don’t you yet understand that the two things have nothing to do with each other?”
I and many others often point out that non-believers typically know more about religion than typical believers do. I don’t claim to one of those non-believers. I feel I learned enough to conclude that I don’t believe. On the one hand I don’t want to learn any more about religion because I have better things to do with my time, but on the other hand I would like to be better able to debate with religious people. I have often thought that a worthy activity after I retire would be to participate in helping to weaken the stranglehold of religion in the U.S., not only because of the treatment of gays, but also many other issues where religion seeks to maintain superstition and thus retard human advancement.
Ben, you obviously have a wealth of knowledge, and I learn a lot from your blog comments. While I fear some people may skip over them due to length, I think they are always well worth reading.
Wow. If I’m reading that properly, he’s saying we need witches, which we are pretty sure don’t exist, in order to prove the existence of god, whom we’re pretty sure does?
Or we’re lying and we know it in the defense of the Fount of truth?
A lie isn’t a lie if it serves a higher purpose?
A lie isn’t a lie if we close our eyes and anuses really, really tightly, and believe absolutely that it isn’t still a lie, even dressed up in its Sunday-go-to-meetin best?
Consider my mind boggled.
Considered my mind boggled…by a methodist!
Evan– this is just me, but I disagree with cutting bob off. He’s not using up so many electrons, and they are not so expensive. People can answer him or not as they see fit. He’s clearly struggling with his homosexuality, and he is clearly being presented with evidence that he has been losing his struggle all of the time he thought he was in fact winning it. (Would that AC and RT and GR and TH and quite a few others could see the same).
His self-hatred is HIS battle, as his coming to an understanding of what he believes to be true. I see no harm in letting him do some of his thinking and his growing up here.
Besides, if i can turn one more guy completely gay I get a new Cusinart with all of the attachments.
Okay, this is going to be off-topic (but only sort of):
Does anyone else see a problem with paragraph formatting in the comments here at TWO? Are the two computers in our house the only ones on earth that exhibit this problem? And I’ve never seen the problem at any other blogs.
Most of the time the paragraph breaks do not appear, thus long comments appear as single long paragraphs. Sometimes refreshing the page will make the breaks appear, but often not. It’s just hit or miss.
This problem only happens with the comments, not the article posts.
I do not have that problem, Richard.
nor i.
I should note that both computers here are running Windows XP (Service Pack 3) with MS Internet Explorer 8 with the latest Microsoft updates.
Just now when I came back to this page, the paragraph breaks appeared, then I hit F5 which reloads the page and the breaks disappeared, then hitting F5 again made them reappear. Now after hitting F5 several times in succession the breaks are not reappearing.
This problem has been occurring at the TWO site for as long as I can remember.
Thanks to Priya and Ben for replying.
Evan “I’ve watched your trolling JAQ off fest for almost a week now, and it’ been completely for naught. ”
I completely agree this is has devolved into an arguement as there is no point continueing this thread.
Evan writes “You’re obviously a self-hating little s**t, and I’m truly sorry for that, but not sorry enough to lose an ounce of sleep. You’re boring the hell out of me, and I’m a moderator here, so I get to decide when I’ve been bored enough.
Fair enough.
Evan writes:”Because, you see, your homosexuality is not a sin. It’ just one of many parts of you, and moreover, it’ not about genitals, but about who you might end up devoting your life to. It should be a man.”
I have tried to tell you that I am not mostly gay, I have some gay thought as I said.
Evan writes;”So here’ the deal: As you’ve been wasting everyone’ time here, you have until 2 PM Central Time tomorrow to get whatever JAQ-ing off out of your system, and then you need to find a new blog to troll”
Is it my fualt that peopel choose to write long answers posing questions to me. They have a free choice.
Evan decrees “So unless you can make a good case for why I should NOT ban you at 2 PM CST tomorrow, scram”
Let me know if I am banned. If not I propose, and I was going there anyway, that I end my participation in this thread and we limit future arguments to just a few cycles or a maximum number of messages.
There’s no point in you continuing here, Bob. You dodge questions put to you and aren’t forthcoming. You can claim this is because you don’t have time, but given that you have the time to post irrelevant non-responses to questions its clearly not a matter of you having time, its a matter of you not being a willing participant in a search for the truth.
“its a matter of you not being a willing participant in a search for the truth.”
Which I am sure you think you have a complete handle on.
Anyway lets just agree to end this thread now.
I still need to know whether or not I am forever censored from posting on this site at all from those in charge.
Bob said “Which I am sure you think you have a complete handle on.”.
I answered every one of your questions and addressed ever point you raised – you didn’t come even remotely close to reciprocating. You repeatedly dodged the moral dilemma I raised and broke your promise to address my comment #96 and then lied and claimed you hadn’t promised to to respond.
You’re a dishonest, disingenous, anti-intellectual person.
Show me exacly how I *lied*. and that I only *claimed* to be busy when I said I had to get back to work.
I know it is far more fun to argue iwth Priya than it is iwth me, but I am still waiting for a response.
You said this: “Do you see Gay liberation as linked to what you would call the God myth. In other words, Is it now necessary to destroy belief in God to advance worldwide Gay liberation?”
And I said what I said. Please give a repsonse to any or all of ctheposts.
@Bob As I’m sure some others would agree, I believe that you have accomplished what you have set out to do by commenting on/continuing this blog. You wanted a forum in which to appear objective without committing an ounce of integrity in the process. I have come to the conclusion that YOU are a victim of the “ex” gay cause, and now you are desperately trying to convince others of the indoctrination you have so willingly embraced. You operate much like a mole underground; dodging this fence post, meticulously dissecting each statement which does not suit your primary goal. What a perfect place to come to infiltrate: Truth Wins Out. Comment section. Any article will do.
What proof do I have? I have none….but then I don’t need any. All it takes is a seed of doubt……..and I would invite ANYONE who has posted on here to go back and read some of Bob’s fodder keeping that possibility in mind.
Get over yourself, Bob. Everyone else has.
Bob said “Show me exacly how I *lied*. and that I only *claimed* to be busy when I said I had to get back to work.”.
I did that in my comment #168 you a**hole. Here it is again:
You first said “You deserve complete answers but alas I cannot spend the time”
After that you said “If you truly feel you will be completely frustrated if I don’t answer you please let me know and I can work on it over the holiday weekend.”
I replied “Oh, I want to hear your response all right, Bob..” and you responded “I’ll work on it then.”.
So, now you’ve repeated your lie that you never promised to respond to my #96 and ignored my #168 where I quoted you promissing to respond. You’re a lying, snivelling, coward.
I don’t want to hear you BS about this again, STFU and go away.
“So, bob, enjoy your religious belief that you are inherently bad. Enjoy your life trying to convince others that you love the sinner and hate the sin, and that your god does the same.
But don’t expect anyone with a shred of self respect to buy that nonsense.”
Stephen– just what I said.
Ben, It is no fun at all for me to argue with Priya and I feel she is trying to provoke further response.
Do you feel I am a liar and Priya is 100% right?
Ben writes;
Honey, don’t you yet understand that the two things have nothing to do with each other? It is all in your mind. You have defined the whole of the Christian faith in terms of this one issue: there are plenty of Christians who have an issue with it, and plenty of Christians that don’t, just like they disagree on graven images, premarital sex, divorce, abortion, trinity vs. unity, transubstantiation vs. whatever it was, faith vs. works, whatever.
The Gay issue is not my main interest at all. It seems like it because that is the subject of this site and these blogs.
Ben writes;
Not to mention, as we discussed, all of the people who think Chtristianity is a silly myth. I know YOU don’t, but your insistence that your version of it and The Literal TRruth That Really Is Christianity are one and the same is part of your problem.
It is unreasonable to demand of me to give up Christianity because it offends you. I would give it up if I felt it was untrue.
Ben writes’
Here it is: religion has appropriated the issue of homosexuality. It has proved far more interested in telling people what to do that in reflecting a reality-based (let alone theologically based)view of homosexuality. It has no business, no knowledge, no authority, and no expertise. It just has power, money, and an agenda.
Ben write;
Here’ the deal: let go of homosexuality, religion, and this fag will let go of religion
So, I hear you saying it’s all about the gay issue. You are asking me to decide either God or gay, no compromise and certainly not both.
Bob said “It is no fun at all for me to argue with Priya and I feel she is trying to provoke further response.”.
You’ve already shown yourself to be extremely unresponsive, if you’re unwilling to engage in sincere give and take then its time for you to STFU and go away. You asked me to show you where you lied, I did so for the second time so don’t whine now that I’m trying to “provoke” a response.
don’t you yet understand that the two things have nothing to do with each other? It is all in your mind. You have defined the whole of the Christian faith in terms of this one issue: there are plenty of Christians who have an issue with it, and plenty of Christians that don’t, just like they disagree on graven images, premarital sex, divorce, abortion, trinity vs. unity, transubstantiation vs. whatever it was, faith vs. works, whatever.
Bob said “I would give it up if I felt it was untrue.”.
BS. You’re not willing to consider the evidence that its untrue – you hide from it at every turn and do everything you can to avoid examining the lack of internal logic in your beliefs and the absurd implications of such beliefs.
Ben,
I guess I don’t understand why it matters to you what I think about myself. I already stated much earlier that as a practical matter I am not opposed to legal rights so I ask you;
1) Isn’t equality what you really want? Would you kick me out of a gay rights march for equality because I also had theological positions you reject?
2) You state your only fighting religion because it is against being gay. So, they are 100% related as I understand you.
3) Please answer me in the dispute with Priya. She tells me to STFU and go away and yet addresses point to me.
If Priya wants my responses she has to ask me to stay and
try to be a little nicer.
Bob I said if you’re unwilling to engage in sincere give and take then its time for you to STFU and go away. You’ve given no sign that you’re willing to engage in sincere give and take, you lied repeatedly about your promise to answer my #96, you’ve repeatedly dodged the question “If it was your god’ will that you rape and burn to death an innocent baby would that be moral because it was god’ will, or would that still be immoral even though it was god’ will?”.
Why should I ask you to stay when you haven’t been forthcoming, honest, or willing to examine the implications of your beliefs? I’ve been very patient with you and all you’ve done is play dishonest games to avoid any real consideration of the truth. What reason do I have to believe you’re going to behave any differently at this point?
Now Bob, unlike you I’ve got some work to do. If you want me to give you further consideration you can start by acknowledging your saying “I’ll work on it then” was a promise to respond to my #96. Respect has to be earned and your behavior to this point deserves nothing but disrespect.
Bob says: If Priya wants my responses she has to ask me to stay and try to be a little nicer.
Are you just nuts? Bob, you sound like a first grader. You opened all this up and refuse to let it go. You come on a primarily gay website and spout anti-gay b.s. and expect people to be nice to you?
And by the way, there are many gay religious groups who march in gay pride parades, etc… You wouldn’t be kicked out for believing in some sort of theological position–unless that position that being gay is sinful and that ex-gay therapy is viable–but, maybe not even then. Gay people tend to be inclusive to the point of damage, you would never see people who say that being okay is good, that gay people should be allowed to marry and adopt that welcome at most fundamentalist Christian gatherings.
“You’re a dishonest, disingenous, anti-intellectual person.”
“You’re a lying, snivelling, coward.”
“I don’t want to hear you BS about this again, STFU and go away.”
But…
“I’ve been very patient with you”
Priya, your not owning up to your own responsibility.
db, I expect people in a discussion to be decent no matter how much they disagree. Slander and religious hate speech are always inappropriate.
db writes” “Are you just nuts? Bob, you sound like a first grader. You opened all this up and refuse to let it go. You come on a primarily gay website and spout anti-gay b.s. and expect people to be nice to you?”
Bob, whatever you expect you’re obviously not getting it. Why do you continue on with this if you’re not being treated as you feel you deserve? This has gone on to 203 posts and I’m still not sure what exactly it is you are trying to do. If you want people to support you in going into ex-gay therapy you’re on the wrong site. I’m sure there are many other sites where people would support you–why are you continuing to argue this to a group who obviously will not agree with you?
db, I’m not going into any ex-gay therepy. I accept I have to live with my gay thoughts.
I don’t want people to support “ex-gay” therepy.
I originally asked a question and there was a discussion. Then my motives and honesty were questioned and that made it an argument. The accusations against me have become a point of honor.
Welcome to the internet Bob, it’s not a nice place.
Was it really worth it Bob? Why don’t you tell me exactly what it is you expect from this. If you want an apology from the people you feel have slighted you I don’t see it coming. You can believe whatever you want–you can’t expect other people to support you in believing whatever you want.
Okay, it’s now officially boring. Good day, Bob.
Becky,
It’s not and it should be. I’m old fashioned and believe people should behave on the internet no different than they would face to face. It’s about being human.
Bob- I’ll make an attempt to reach you one more time. but I would suggest you read and think about my previous posts. you’ll save us both some time.
“I guess I don’t understand why it matters to you what I think about myself.”
Because I care about every gay person who has been denied the full potential happiness of their lives because some asshat, either wearing a cross or bearing
one, sees fit to make their lives miserable. You are entitled to love, sex, romance, family, relationship– all of it. You are worthy in god’s sight– all of you.
“Isn’t equality what you really want?”.
I want equality. I also want an end to prejudice. I want an end to teenagers killing themselves, or being killed, because some asshat–see above– doesn’t approve.
“Would you kick me out of a gay rights march for equality because I also had theological positions you reject?”
I have no objections to anyone believing whatever they want. So, no, I wouldn’t kick you out. But I would also not expect to see you in such a parade, lest one of your fellow churchgoers has their preconceptions challenged. When I see you in a gay pride parade fervently claiming both equality and sin, I’ll answer you more fully.
“You state your only fighting religion because it is against being gay. So, they are 100% related as I understand you.” I don’t fight religion. I don’t care about it. I fight bigotry and hate, whether disguised as sincere religious belief or admitted for what it is. They are only related because a PORTION of organized religion has declared itself to be my enemy, and has taken active steps to make my life difficult, unpleasant, and expensive. They will tell any lie, no matter how vicious and how stupid, to make their point and to keep the money rolling in.
“Please answer me in the dispute with Priya. She tells me to STFU and go away and yet addresses point to me.” You’ll have to deal with Priya yourself. Priya’s a smart cookie, and not particularly soft and cuddly. You’ll have much less to dispute with anyone if you start thinking more about what various people have said to you and far less about what you might think.
“So, I hear you saying it’ all about the gay issue. You are asking me to decide either God or gay, no compromise and certainly not both.”
No, I’ve said quite clearly that this dichotomy is all in YOUR mind. Here are the two things I have said to you. I lack the ability to put them into simpler, plainer, or clearer English.
First this: Honey, don’t you yet understand that the two things have nothing to do with each other? It is all in your mind. You have defined the whole of the Christian faith in terms of this one issue: there are plenty of Christians who have an issue with it, and plenty of Christians that don’t, just like they disagree on graven images, premarital sex, divorce, abortion, trinity vs. unity, transubstantiation vs. whatever it was, faith vs. works, whatever.
Not to mention, as we discussed, all of the people who think Christianity is a silly myth. I know YOU don’t, but your insistence that your version of it and The Literal Truth That Really Is Christianity are one and the same is part of YOUR problem. (Look up the words solipsism and reification and you will have a better understanding of your own mental processes.)
Then this: “Christianity claimed authority, knowledge, expertise, mandate, and relevance on the subject of homosexuality, a subject it clearly knows NOTHING about. In the whole of the bible, with the possible exceptions of Jonathan and David and the centurion and his boy slave, there is not one fulfilling, happy, nurturing same sex relationship. not one. Prurient, puritan Paul, may possibly have observed something on the subject–the guy with the un-named thorn in his flesh and a big issue with women– immersed as he was in the Greek and roman worlds of his time, but he didn’t mention it either, and what he did have to say was so vague and ambiguous that only an ideologue from either camp could assert positively that he said anything one way or the other. Abusers of themselves with mankind? I do it all the time, and I still don’t know what it means.
So bob, if you really want to believe that your version of Christianity has authority, knowledge, expertise, mandate, and relevance on the subject of homosexuality, a subject it clearly knows NOTHING about– knock your self out. Be my guest. It’ your life.”
Bob, Bob, Bob, if you came up to people and said some of the things you’ve said here–they wouldn’t be any nicer to your face than they were here.
Y’all.
He’s gone.
It had gone on long enough.