OSC’s Blue-sky thinking! The wacky world of the often illiberal left (III)

In my and Alex’s previous conversation we found people in the atheist community, perhaps due to an open secret of having hated that non-atheists ever dared to define the belief of atheism, today work tirelessly to redefine atheism out of its original context and into an incoherent and unworkable new definition, one which attempts to recast atheism as a state of mind (how zen!) rather than the plain position which every atheist truly holds to, that being that “God does not exist.” Atheists affirm the reality of a godless universe, although being unable to sustain the burden of proving their knowledge claim they’re forced into defining their way out of defending their position, which is in itself a kind of defense, just not a defense of their view (how bizarre!).

Nonetheless, Alex, who is an honest, good-natured person (like many atheists) has also been duped into the group think and shared falsehoods which characterize the often dangerous militant godless. Christians therefore, insofar as Alex has been concerned, are to be indiscriminately defined as anyone who self-identifies as Christian, whereas an atheist is anybody (or perhaps even anything) who lacks belief in a god (so worms, babies and table legs). These are really foundational falsehoods, by which atheists barrel through conversations as if everybody must embrace these things, for which you should also be accepting of the errors built upon the false foundations, of course, if an individual can’t accept the foundation they would do well to reject the fruits of that same foundation. Atheists try playing the same game with the word faith, as we’ll read later in another exchange with Alex. Today’s conversation however, one which took place over at Midori Skies (Alex’s blog), continues around the theme of defining who is and isn’t a certain sort of believer, in addition, the dreaded No True fallacy is finally answered.


round-3

Alex Black: As a rule, I refuse to debate over who is a “true” adherent of any religion. In my experience, everybody has a different opinion over who is or isn’t a “true” believer. Different people within the same religion say conflicting things about who is doing it “right”. Different sects and denominations say opposing things about which sects and denominations actually belong to their religion. There isn’t any sort of consensus that I have seen, and, as an outsider, I feel like I have even less to say about who is a “true” follower of a religion than those who are actually part of the religion. And since everyone disagrees with each other, I can’t just take anybody’s word for it that this person or that person isn’t a “true” adherent (unless that person themself says “no, actually I was just faking it”). . . (for the entire article, please read on).

confusion-clarity-spiritual-path

OldSchoolContemporary: The truth is Alex, if we’re going to write and have any sort of coherent thought life, especially one which involves writing and expressing ourselves with regards to religion, we’re going to have to have a working definition of what it means to be XYZ, and to refuse interacting on the subject as you claim to do, claiming you refuse to debate on the issue “As a rule” just betrays a closed mind or some sort of tribalism. An example is your ability to write waves of material on the definition of one world-view (atheism) which would in so doing disqualify people who don’t conform to the view as found in your work, while also supposing you’re incapable of identifying other adherents to some set of beliefs or behaviors. Once again Coyote [an earlier poster in the same topic] clarified, moreover I’d imagine you yourself must have already known their correction since in your material you’ve substituted “true” for “real” and so on, their reply explained when someone writes someone else isn’t a true this, that or whatever, what they’re saying is that the accused is failing (often willfully so) to fulfill a kind of duty or behavior that’s commonly defined as belonging to the world-view the accused claims to belong to.*

hypocrite

*Much to the surprise of my friends in the infidel community, there are these things called hypocrites, people who say things and then don’t follow through with the things they’re saying (or even do the opposite). You’ll slam you for eating fast food, then eat a McDonald’s burger, they’ll say they’re all about helping the poor while talking on their £700 phone, similarly people are likely to say they’re “Christian” while not actually behaving any differently from the secular community wherein they live.

You’re apparently having two confused notions on the matter, the first being that because you don’t believe in the meat of a religion there’s no such thing as a “true” believer in said religion, which is easily gathered when you write “Does “true adherent” have any real meaning at all to someone who thinks all the followers of that religion are mistaken?” Well, yes, yes the words true adherent certainly do have meaning whether or not people are mistaken in their values or world-view, that’s plain to people everywhere. There’s most certainly a Christian behavior when someone strikes a Christian on their cheek, it’s in the religious teaching of Christ whose words every Christian claims to be following, so when someone strikes back rather than turn the other cheeks to their attacker they have most definitely failed with regards to their Christianity.

Another mistaken notion of yours in my mind is that you’re after some sort of “consensus” before you’re able to define who is and isn’t XY or Z, which would be simply to excuse yourself from forming an accurate definition based upon careful study. There’s certainly no global consensus on every jot and tittle and to suppose you’ll be requiring one before moving forwards would be bonkers, however, if it’s a majority decision you’re after with regards to the core then the vast majority of both believing Christians and unbelievers are agreed that the Bible, more specifically the New Testament (barring some epistles and the Book of Revelations) would be an accurate benchmark by which to measure who is and who isn’t an actual/true/real Christian. The idea isn’t something revolutionary, and to be so sensible as to define exactly what’s what should come as standard to every thinking person, meaning, when someone says or writes how a particular person isn’t a true something, they’re saying they’re in fact “nominal”, meaning they’re the thing they claim to be in name only. In reality it’s not people outside of the atheist community who commit fallacies when they point out people aren’t adhering to their supposed faith, rather it’s the late great Anthony Flew and their No True fallacy which has been judged fallacious!*

a_rettenthetetlen

*Don’t be fooled, that’s no “true” Scotsman! In fact, being born in New York, he’s not even Australian (that trick accent threw me).

Thomas Shirk describes why that’s so: This essentially means that if set (X) does not intersect set (Y) then an object (Y) is not an (X). How is this fallacious? It isn’t! Only when set (Y) is not demonstrated to be nonintersecting to (X) does the expression become a fallacy. In the NTS story, “Scotsman” is set (X). Drinking tea with cream is set (Y).. MacDougal drinks his tea with cream and is thus an object in set (Y). The fallacy is that the definitions do not clash; there is nothing definitionally nonintersecting about X and Y. So an object in set (Y) can also exist in set (X). The word “Scotsman” refers to a racial/ethnic category; it has absolutely nothing to do with how one takes one’s tea. This eliminates the first premise of the argument. By invalidating the premise, the argument becomes a fallacy.*

ME_474_QuestionAuthority

Your mistake is to believe that there’s nothing which makes a person either Christian, Muslim or Hindu and so on into every world-view except atheism, and apparently you’re only open to defining atheism because you’ve got a sort of tribal affiliation with the belief. It’s a mystery to me how you can believe both that you “can’t trust” people who admonish others for refusing to hold to a belief system’s core truths and commands they falsely claim to hold, yet you’re happy to trust in absolutely everybody by offering no resistance when they insist they’re something they clearly aren’t. Diplomacy does have its limits. Your ideas appear to imply religious beliefs and duties are like ethnicities which people are born into and incapable of not belonging a part of, thus a person is incapable of disqualifying themselves from being a part.

Here’s an example brewing in my mind now, and one which nobody could surely contest, it being that you can trust me with regards to certain people being “false” believers in Christianity, although you believe there’s no trusting anybody on anything due to there being “no consensus.” Now, having gestured to person X, my next step is to outline their behaviors, one such behavior being their belief set, because although claiming to be Christian (i.e. follower of Jesus Christ’s teachings), they hold beliefs suchlike “There’s no God”, “There’s no Son of God”, “There’s nothing bar science and the natural world”, they claim nonetheless to be Christian, would you paralyze yourself by accepting their assertion that they’re indeed Christian?! If you wouldn’t then you’re equipped already to dismiss many supposed Christians.

Similarly there’s Islam, about which there’s consensus enough (will there ever be enough for some?) to say a certain behavior is thoroughly Islamic, even so much so as to be named an Islamic duties. An example being “If anyone leaves his Islamic religion, kill them.” (Bukhari 52:260, Bukhari 84:57, Bukhari 89:271), that’s plain, unambiguous and binding in such a way as “turn the other cheek” is plain, unambiguous and binding. If to the above someone replies “I’m Koran only” the person already isn’t Muslim as Muslim is commonly and has been historically described, therefore you can dismiss their claim to being Muslim and understand their views as outside of the mainstream. Mormonism isn’t any different in that the belief is so alien to everything the bulk of historic Christianity professes to believe as to be unchristian.*

afghan-759267

Just compare core Christian features and beliefs as held for over 1000 years before Mormonism began: Christianity is Monotheistic (Mormons however believe in infinite gods), Christians believe in God’s Grace (Mormons however believe they earn their salvation), Jesus in the mind of Christians (and “real” historians) is known as an unmarried Jew (Mormons however believe based on the weakest “evidence” that Jesus had not one, not two, but three wives!), thank you polygamist and chronic liar Joseph Smith for that historic insight into Jesus’ life. So, you can discount people not merely for failing to believe in certain things or holding sincerely to their supposed faith, but also for dismissing core elements of their supposed faith and teaching things which are clearly incompatible with it’s core features. Therefore, Mormons are not Christian (not even close), although if a person’s main concern is being a tummy rubber, and soothing any opposite voices because the owner’s of said voices are quick to anger or eager to take offense, then they’re constraint to name everybody Christian just so long as they’re angry enough.

In concluding, there’s without doubt religious tenets, credal statements, behaviors, affirmations of the faith and an agreed upon fashion or consensus with which people are to hold to various world-views, meaning, when or if a person won’t conform to religious tenets, credal statements, behaviors, affirmations of faith and agreed upon fashions with which to hold to their supposed religion, or even preaches ideas in direct contradiction to the above, they’re considered an apostate or “nominal”, meaning they’re the thing they claim to be in name alone, that and not a True Believer.

Alex Black: Hello OSC. I’ve been meaning to get back to you on our other conversation, but I’ve been particularly busy as of late. I don’t have time just now to write a write a thorough response, either here or there, but I did want to let you know I haven’t abandoned the conversation.

There’s a difference between arguing over who is a “true” Christian, and coming up with a working definition of “Christian”. The latter conversation is indeed important, if one wants to be able to talk about Christians as a group. The former conversation I feel I have little of value to contribute to, not being a Christian myself. Furthermore, it confuses me, as I see people saying many different conflicting things. You say that there is a general consensus that Christians are people who follow the New Testament, but different people think different parts of the New Testament are the most important ones to adhere to, and differnt people interpret different passages in different ways. Who am I to say which of these people is doing it right, much less which are “true” Christians? I have no position on the importance of any particular passage, or the “correct” interpretation of any passage.*

denominations

Coyote made an important distinction between saying who is a “true” Christian, and saying that someone isn’t doing Christianity “right”. To further clarify, I would not want to get into a discussion about who is doing Christianity “right”, either, as I have no idea what the “right” way to do Christianity might be. But if someone told me that someone else wasn’t doing Christianity “right”, then I’d be willing to simply accept that, taking it as part of that person’s particular beliefs. But when someone says that someone else isn’t a “true” Christian, then it comes across to me as “You shouldn’t call that person a Christian.” If I was careful not to refer to people who are not “true” Christians as Christians, then I would never know who I could or couldn’t call a Christian.

I’m not after any absolute global consensus of who is a “true” Christian. I would settle for a simple majority of Christians using the term in similar ways to each other, in order to infer the meaning of the term. But there isn’t even close to any consistency of that sort that I can see, except perhaps with regards to fringe groups like the Westboro Baptist Church.

“Your mistake is to believe that there’s nothing which makes a person either Christian, Muslim or Hindu and so on…”

PC2

Um, no, that is not what I think. I do not know if there is some inherent set of qualities which makes one a “true” Christian, a “true” Muslim, or a “true” Hindu. If there is, then I’m sure I don’t know what it is. But there is certainly a common usage definition of what Christian, Muslim, or Hindu means. People use these words all the time, and, as with any other word, the meaning can be inferred from the way others use the word. Not knowing how to differentiate “true” adherents from “false” ones, I go with the common usage definition. Or, I describe people as they would like to be described, because that is a respectful way to treat people. There’s a huge difference between respecting a person’s self-discription and claiming that they are a “true” adherent.*

“It’s a mystery to me how you can believe both that you ‘can’t trust’ people who admonish others for refusing to hold to a belief system’s core truths and commands they falsely claim to hold, yet you’re happy to trust in absolutely everybody by offering no resistance when they insist they’re something they clearly aren’t.”

Well, it would certainly help if people generally agreed on what these “core truths” are that other people are not holding to. And I see nothing wrong with taking other people at their word until given a reason to do otherwise. I would not doubt someone if they told me they were a mechanic or a lawyer, or that they have family in Texas or Sweden. Why should I doubt people when they tell me their religion?

“Your ideas appear to imply religious beliefs and duties are like ethnicities which people are born into and incapable of not belonging a part of, thus a person is incapable of disqualifying themselves from being a part.”

Absolutely not. People change their religions all the time. Well, not all the time, but often enough. I have no idea why you think my ideas imply that.

“[a]lthough claiming to be Christian … they hold beliefs suchlike “There’s no God”, … they claim nonetheless to be Christian, would you paralyze yourself by accepting their assertion that they’re indeed Christian?!”

Perhaps they are a cultural Christian?

As a side note, I am considering not continuing our debate. I am having trouble finding time to write the sort of thorough response that your comments generally merit. I actually started a draft of this response over a week ago, and it still took me this long to find time to finish it.

OldSchoolContemporary:

‘There’s a difference between arguing over who is a “true” Christian, and coming up with a working definition of “Christian”.’

The above issue is you have so quickly forgotten who it is your response is in answer to. You are attempting to answer religious people when they claim XY and Z aren’t AB or C, though in so doing we’d best understand in what way the believing person means “true” if you’re to write an accurate reply, wouldn’t you agree? Believers say ‘Michel wasn’t a true Christian’, by which they mean to say ‘Michel’s viewpoints, conduct and overall behavior wasn’t as so defined by either Biblical Christianity or any modern denominations’. You tacitly admit to understanding this when you replace real for true and true for real in various places, meaning there’s no need to be dense when synonyms are in use. Once again: ‘they’re saying that the accused is failing (often willfully so) to fulfill a kind of duty or behavior that’s commonly defined as belonging to the world-view the accused claims to belong to.’ So, for you to reply ‘Aha! Can anybody be a true Christian when Christianity is false?’ Just betrays confusion on your part as to what they’re saying, meaning it’s not that there are two arguments, there’s one argument which is made two by your continued misunderstanding.

Lost and Confused Signpost

Despite their seemingly ravenous desire to talk about topics loosely related to Christianity (gay marriage, abortion, how ignorant people who don’t agree with atheism are etc), atheists don’t appear to know about the actual Bible, for which “every religion must be equally as good as the next” is their shared opinion.

Nevertheless, you wrote further: ‘Furthermore, it confuses me, as I see people saying many different conflicting things.’* You mean you “hear” people saying many different conflicting things. See, it’s doing a person no good when they either refuse or cannot gather the expression of others. Upon which point you’d counter my counter by saying you’re able to see conflicting things by way of being a lip reader (et cetera et cetera). We’d be here until Kingdom come arguing about what words you have seen and what believers mean by true. Moreover, being so diplomatic as you are, you’re really constraint to concede to the believing person’s use of the word “true” meaning “to believe in and adhere to various truth claims, religious tenets and authorities.” Which would mean when a person refuses to believe in and adhere to XY and Z they’re indeed no longer a true AB or C (regardless of what they insist upon). The facts of the above really aren’t controversial.

To briefly outline an earlier point of mine, one which you yourself will admit to having totally misread: ‘having gestured to person X, my next step is to outline their behaviors, one such behavior being their belief set, because although claiming to be Christian (i.e. follower of Jesus Christ’s teachings), they hold beliefs suchlike “There’s no God”, “There’s no Son of God”, “There’s nothing bar science and the natural world”, they claim nonetheless to be Christian, would you paralyze yourself by accepting their assertion that they’re indeed Christian?!’

political_correctness

To point to someone “culturally” Christian as an example of Christianity is like pointing to me as an excellent example of atheism or Islam in action, it’s simply unworkable, yet due to a wealth of previous misconceptions which are already in play, unbelievers proceed to force themselves upon an unwilling world.

To which you replied: ‘Perhaps they are a cultural Christian?”* Now, my initial reaction to your sort of reply in person would be to say don’t be glib, yet in writing, and perhaps because these are complex topics, you have again missed the charge and answered in a way nobody really prompted you to. Perhaps because you’re thinking about Christians, rather than reading in more an abstract way, you’re missing the big picture. The above person does not conform in any way to the sort of view they’re attempting to depict themselves as, and as a consequence they’re unable to define their behaviors (views included) in any way as is commonly described, rather their view is internally incoherent. That would entail the person being unable to refer to themselves as culturally Christian, therefore you have answered a question nobody has asked. For which the question must be put to you once more: Would you refer to a person who conformed in no way to the thing they claimed to be conforming to, and even believed and taught things contrary to the thing they supposed themselves to belong to as the thing they contradictorily claimed to be? Would you commit intellectual suicide by claiming a person who in no way believed in X was a believer in X? You do believe in the law of noncontradiction presumably.


Again I’m never given a reply to my above questions, although an outline of why certain sorts of definitions, namely those which attempt to indiscriminately define everybody as whatever they self-identify are, have been thoroughly explained and shown to be lacking. Atheists are going to have to make their peace with being unable to call anybody they like Christian, Muslim, Hindus or whatever the subject mistakenly believes they’re supposed to be described as.

gullibility-20test

Instead, unbelievers are going to have to do the one thing they don’t want to do, engage with religion in some meaningful way, not doing so by way of how Biblical ethics relate to gay and lesbian identity politics, nor how feminist movements currently interpret Genesis or Paul’s letters, they’re instead going to have to get into the gritty details of proper theology, which is of course the great danger to unbelievers, as being open, listening so to learn or even reading from material not already vetted by their community is to risk changing one’s mind. Reading a meme is a lot easier than the Bible itself. Atheism affords atheists a certain level of gullibility about world religions and claims to religiosity, one which must be wearing thin in their lives as well as the lives of everybody else, perhaps it’s time to put the religious relativism, gullibility and embarrassment of disinterest to rest.*

― T. C. M

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “OSC’s Blue-sky thinking! The wacky world of the often illiberal left (III)

  1. Ultimately, there is One who defines a true Christian, and holds us all accountable to acknowledge and to live out His definition. No other faith has any such objective measure, and so the definitions really are relative.

    “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.” All of John chapter 10 is relevant.

    “Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” John 4

    Many other verses could be added.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Having just read over 400 “reasons” to disbelieve in God I think it’s obvious what’s going on in the above definition game. Atheists (not all, but many) often feel the need to invent reasons to disbelieve, after which they hope the sheer volume of invented problems, problems which aren’t problems in the least, will help them to feel comfortable in whatever it is that they’re saying/doing. Most believers are so daunted by the waves of rage and criticism that they no longer approach unbelievers, many atheists are like an open wound which nobody can heal in case they react angrily or get further entrenched in their disbelief. Hopefully people will look up those chapters you’ve shared with an open mind, they’re a great addition to the conversation!

      Liked by 1 person

      • You are correct in my view that the purpose of the volume of arguments is to excuse the FEELING that it’s right to discard belief. They are so obviously driven by their emotions, their defenses are emotion-oriented. But sadly they believe they are the reasonable ones and like to lecture on logic and freethinking.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Let’s not forget atheism entails such beliefs as materialism/determinism, meaning to the unbelievers they aren’t thinking these things through or making choices in the things they do/don’t do. So, the “freethinking” atheist by their own belief is neither free nor thinking! It’s the guiltless, content free choice (though not a choice) of a new generation.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, claiming superior critical thinking skills and resultant decision-making! I thought Allalt (?) let out a huge gift that went unengaged:he declared that he did not believe in free will, period.

        Well done. Again, so good to see JZ relying on Scripture.

        Liked by 1 person

      • After their meltdown I honestly didn’t feel their heart was in the conversation anymore, it’s sad. Hopefully the conversation was a pebble in their shoe, maybe that way others (parents, girlfriends etc) can reach them in a way I can’t. God has it all in hand.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Insofar as John is concerned (or perhaps unconcerned), you should avail yourself of his latest master piece in part 6 of Allallt’s ongoing love affair with the poster XPrae. They’re doing the same party trick they tried and failed at with pagan gods/goddesses, supposedly Christian conflicts and the out of context Gospel of John quotes, although it’s totally different this time (no rolling your eyes), as this time they’ve posted a laundry list of quotes which undoubtedly go to show Hitler was Christian! Oh yes, it’s not like JZ is once again posting waves of out of context quotes he has little to no background knowledge of. These are the real deal this time, even quotes he hasn’t (I repeat hasn’t) had pre-prepared on a wordpad document for years. 😛 So people had better pay attention!

        Whether it’s about making the distinction between ceremonial and moral laws, defining faith (which you’d enjoy reading here https://allallt.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/questions-for-theists/) or abortion (which we’re discussed twice), writing to Allallt and JZ has been a real gift to me. They’re smart enough to use pre-prepared material and trick definitions of words, but not smart enough to hold a simple Bible study (the one thing they really need!) Hopefully they won’t do much damage to those untrained in Scripture.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I have read at least some of that and it was quite entertaining! I’ll have to check out if I’ve missed any new material in the last few days…
        As you may know I’ve had several discussions with JZ about abortion on my blog, but it’s disappointing that he will never engage the substance of the posts, or even of the discussions with other people, because he insists on barraging me with his “trump” questions du jour, duckspeak-fashion.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Having given a little study time to “Duckspeak”, the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell, has always been a source of fun to me (although having never read it). Here in the UK there are these reoccurring topics people bring up rather glibly, the queen (who I’m softening towards), weather and Nineteen Eighty-Four. The strange part of when people here generally talk about the book is that they speak of the spookiness of some totalitarian thought police society happening “someday”, they say these things while being in the most surveillanced city (London) in the most surveillanced nation in the entire world, without a hint of irony people might challenge this claim, defending their nanny state by insisting we’re merely the most spied on people in Europe, as opposed to in the world (sounding bad regardless). It’s funny to me how people can imagine a state in which they’re spied on in public the majority of the day, and using a future curtailed language, imaging these things while they’re at present in a state which already spies on their lives and has curtailed their vocabulary! They simply justify their totalitarian state in the now while imagining some far greater one later. It’s like how bank robbers beat up rapists in prison, while rapists beat up on child abusers, they’re simply pointing to the other guy down the line. Where I myself live the amount of camera coverage is described as “endemic surveillance”, yet, people are talking about some spooky day in the future where people are doing the duckspeak (while they of course have already conformed their use of words as is dictated by culture so to retain work, friends etc). “Evil” is a great example of language people have done their best to eradicate, our sort don’t find it “helpful”, it’s “ungood” even.

        Your abortion situation is being played out over at Allallt’s too as I’ve noticed, although why unbelievers would expend so much time fighting for other people’s desire to slay their own children is anybody’s guess. Having spoken about the above problem all I’ve seen from people on the subject is politicized science and the odd non-sequitur that goes nowhere.

        A great example of our sort of thought policing nation would be from the leader of the Liberal Democrat party here in the UK, they were up until recently in a unified government with the supposed conservative party. Their leader (Nick Clegg) in an interview insisted he’d advance “gay rights” by forcing faith schools to teach that homosexuality is normal and without risk to health! Forcing faith schools, and that’s met by silence here in the UK, moreover, Clegg insisted all schools are to implement anti-homophobia bullying policies and will be forced into teaching homosexuality as “normal and harmless.” For more on how normal and harmless homosexuality is please feel free to read my conversation with Allallt below, another gift from him to me. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • It’s an anxious sign of our times that Nineteen Eighty-Four is no longer on most required reading lists. It ought to be read and studied in every school. Indeed we see its unwitting replay now in your country and mine. My comment about JZ referred to the way he barrages you with his very programmed sound bytes almost as though it comes from the throat rather than the mind. As you might see over at allalt’s, even his atheist allies are calling his premises ridiculous without recognizing that he holds them.
        Over here we have the beginnings of lawfully enforced speech requirements. This is a very dark time. I know that we will all be called to account for our political right-thinking, and will not be able to hide. Agreement will be required.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. A lot of this conversation I’m not sure I followed. (Maybe I’ll reread another time.) But in our conversation you tried to redefine Christianity as a state of mind; not the belief, but the transformative effect you suppose it will have.

    Like

    • The belief or mind state would rather be the precursor to a transformative experience. The charge of myself redefining wouldn’t be particularly appropriate just so long as I’m holding firm to a Biblical concept, selfsame Mad blog, who’s already shared a couple of relevant scriptural passages. Although, even by my own shared definition in our conversations, to say I described the believing Christian as merely involved in a state of mind would be far too simplistic, wouldn’t you agree? Rather, belief, as in a combination of “belief in” and “confidence that” would be a precursor to a radical transformative experience through which the then regenerate believer was actually indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

      An example of the above would be found for reading John 14:15-17, which goes so far as to detail the indwelling: “If you love me, keep my commands. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.”

      Or as is found by reading 1 Corinthians 3:16, which explains: “Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?”

      Behaviour in terms of deeds therefore, though not meritorious for salvation, are a resulting consequence of the new believer actually having sure confidence in the promises of Christ. Due to which others can know they’re in fact a reformed character, Corinthians even explains “the fruits of the Spirit” are found in the life of a regenerate believer. The fruits aren’t deeds, instead they’re character traits which would be encouraged/fostered by the operations of the Spirit in the new believer. The above of course informed my views when writing:

      There’s certainly no global consensus on every jot and tittle and to suppose you’ll be requiring one before moving forwards would be bonkers, however, if it’s a majority decision you’re after with regards to the core then the vast majority of both believing Christians and unbelievers are agreed that the Bible, more specifically the New Testament . . . would be an accurate benchmark by which to measure who is and who isn’t an actual/true/real Christian.

      Though insofar as Alex was concerned the above could only work to the extent that the believer has given their intellectual assent (belief that), confidence that (trust in), and had the resulting behaviour due to the selfsame beliefs/confidence, meaning they had already precluded the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as an option. So, the “state of mind” (which you introduced as total) wouldn’t be the full spectrum of the believing person, similarly I wouldn’t write and describe belief or a mind state being our best portrait. In fact, the belief itself wouldn’t even be salvation worthy, but the cross, and having Christ’s righteousness imputed to them due to their confidence would be the pivotal factor, it’s relational, as in the changed relationship with God by being clothed in Jesus’ blood (or sacrifice) would be an accurate description of true saving faith (hence of the state of a true believer). Yet to prove the above by an experiment to my and Alex’s satisfaction would counterintuitively unmake the entire case, for which both myself and Black were writing without explicitly highlighting the spiritual processes behind the overt natural processes. Though for the overt behaviours of the believer, their spiritual regeneration is evidenced:

      “What does it profit, my brethren,” We begin by reading in the epistle of James: “if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?”

      Faith therefore, or perhaps belief/confidence, the same distinction you and I have discussed before, would be the necessary precursor to righteous works, by which you, myself and Alex can define the believing Christian without butting heads over the facts of whether or not the Christian perspective is wholly true (as Alex didn’t want to discuss such a subject as this). When you explain my position as being involved with the “transformative effect” which I suppose the belief state and consequent confidence to result in, that’s highly accurate, with which I can, nay, am commanded by Scripture, to judge whether or not a person has experienced that transformation process based upon their beliefs, faith and resulting behaviour. The regeneration can be by my above material implied, or gleaned, though wasn’t necessarily on the table for a protracted philosophical discussion (nor would Alex care for such a discussion).

      Alex’s definition of an actual Christian, as is the case due I suspect to their transgenderism, would be explained by their confession with regards to their identity as trans. To playfully write, I might say Alex says: “I think (as in the affirmation of their perceived male identity), therefore YOU SAY that I am.” Alex identifies in such a way, for which they demand you too define them in the very same way, to not means you’re violating a sort of fair play rule or something of the sort. Now, battling Alex’s identity isn’t my goal, obviously it’s something we’d struggle over, nonetheless, it’s not something I want to harm our relationship by. But it’s by Alex’s idea that self-identity be the benchmark by which I ought to define people where the argument truly laid, though even their definition has it’s limitations, places about which Alex refuses to allow self-determining. Journalist Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, in an article titled “The Psychological Profession and Homosexuality”, kind of captured Alex’s method in what reads as a classic pub joke, though the joke is on pro-gay, pro-transgender professionals in this case:

      ‘A man goes to a psychologist with a problem. “Doctor,” he says, “I’m suffering terribly. I feel like a woman trapped inside of the body of a man. I want to become a woman.” The psychologist responds: “No problem. We can discuss this idea for a couple of years, and if you’re still sure you want to become a woman, we can have a surgeon remove your penis, give you hormones for breast enlargement and make other changes to your body. Problem solved.” Gratified, the first patient leaves, followed by a second. “Doctor,” he says, “I feel terrible. I’m a man but I feel attracted to other men. I want to change my sexual preference. I want to become heterosexual.” The psychologist responds: “Oh no, absolutely not! That would be unethical. Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic!”‘

      Of course, gender is changeable, but not sexual orientation, so goes the method of many modern people.

      Like

  3. I just had a skim over your conversations. I’ll keep my thoughts about your comments on JZ to myself. But, characterising my comment where I was rather short with attempts to shoe horn my views into that of the Nazis or the the Soviets as a ‘melt down’ somewhat misses the mark. I’ve explained that I was exasperated with your long comment tying ‘valuing wellbeing’ to oppressive and genocidal regimes. They aren’t overlapping on a Venn diagram. You trying to force it was frustrating.
    I know you maintain that you were dealing with the view as I presented it, but you weren’t.
    Since then I thought our conversation had moved on. I’m still waiting on you to do a little of the ground work in helping me understand your views and prose: what is morality, the moral experience and the appropriate language and metrics to be using to explain it? Obviously, I’ll be on guard to make sure you’re not just making your specific view immutable; there’s certainly no point in continuing a conversation about morality if you believe the metrics and language I have to use are necessarily theistic (although, I give you more credit than to shut a discussion down like that, I’m just letting you know the kinds of thing I am on guard for).
    I find Bible study a difficult thing to recommend. First of all, I’ve read the Bible and don’t see why I now have to study it. It should be clearer than that. It has a perfect author. Secondly, it is exactly vast enough and ambiguous enough to say almost literally anything. You can bring your own baggage to the Bible and have it leave unchanged. What I’m saying is that, from the 18 hours I have spent in directed Bible study, there is no right answer.

    Take just the question ‘Does the New Testament admonish slavery?’ Here’s a few answers:
    Symbolically, yes — Paul’s letter to Philemon’s master implored him to let Philemon go.
    — But, that was 1 person. Paul requested the freedom of one person he had come to know.
    Ambiguously, errr — Both slaves and free persons are sons of God.
    — So, can I keep a slave or not?
    Explicitly, no — The Old Testament describes how to keep slaves, and the Jesus says he has no come to change any of the Old Testament.
    A ‘conspicuous by its absence’ no — self-explanatory, really. No one criticises it directly.

    In fact, the only thing the Old Testament does, so far as I can see, to reprimand slavery is the ‘Give unto Caesar’ thing (interpreted as ‘obey the laws of the land’) and that only works because now the law of the land does outlaw slavery.

    I don’t write this to start a discussion about slavery in the Bible; such a conversation I find quite tedious after years of it always coming up. I write this is explain that I don’t find Bible study helps to do anything but give a person more passages to support exactly what they want to say. So, describing me as not smart enough to do Bible study is wrong.

    As an aside, I think I share your bafflement regarding transgender(ism?) but come at the issue with slightly more sympathy. See, there’s this language that I’ve encountered a lot recently regarding what it ‘feels’ like to be a certain gender. And the truth is, I have no idea. I don’t know which of my feelings are gendered, which are human, which are uniquely me… I don’t even know which are fleeting until they are gone. Even feminists talk about masculinity as if it were a fake thing; a performance; ‘why are you trying to proof your masculinity?’. I know full well that this language is alluding to a phenomenon I don’t have access to, so I can’t pretend to understand.
    I also agree that, no matter what your moral barometer, if it is even vaguely consistent, then if it is okay for a person to pick a gender, it is okay for a person to pick a sexuality (technology and knowledge permitting). Although, I think it is a history of forced (and traumatic and failed and damaging) attempts at sexuality change that give it a bad name. Less morality, more emotivism.

    Like

    • Good morning, Allallt! I haven’t forgotten about your challenge with regards to morality, even your ask that I’d outline an appropriate/fuller understanding of the things I’m sharing, in fact, it’s something I expect next to answer for you. Hopefully you found the above explanation on how accurate belief and sure confidence are a necessary prerequisite to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit helpful. Lastly, although the cherry of “traumatic, failed and damaging attempts” at changing sexual orientation is just so tempting I want to pick it now, I’m going to briefly write instead how I hope you never take anything I write as a serious slight against you (because that’s not in my heart). You’re as intelligent an atheist as I have spoken to, and it’s that same intellect that’s going to lead you to Christ (that’s my confidence).

      Liked by 1 person

      • That’s not a path I can envisage. But, time will tell, I suppose. (It’ll certainly change the language and content of my blog.)
        To be completely sincere on the issue, although I admit to having done only a little directed Bible study, I still struggle with the idea of an “accurate” belief.

        Liked by 1 person

      • So, because I know you love my Nazi length messages, 😛 I’m trying to divide my reply into bite sized portions for your enjoyment, I’d originally intended to send you the entire thing after a few days of writing on and off, although reading back my contribution to myself now, I’m thinking you’d be far happier having my post come by way of little flurries, rather than dropping the A-bomb full force. You may even read the following material and say to yourself “Man, there’s nothing in there I disagree with!” I would be really pleased if that were the case. I’d also like to preface the entire message by quoting from the Martyrdom of Polycarp, which reads: “For it is the office of true and steadfast love, not only to desire that oneself be saved, but all the brethren also.” My heart goes out to people who feel same sex desires everywhere, not because I’m loving (I’m often not), but because Jesus loves, and because He loves I can too.

        The charge of gay, lesbian and transgender activists would be to say that gender, gender insofar as they’re concerned, should be classed as nothing more than an inconvenient social convention, no different than driving on one side of the road or another, on the opposite end orientation, which they insist ought to be declared an immutable, innate genetic feature of their identity, must be safeguarded from “failed”, “damaging” and “traumatic” ventures in reorientation. “Hollywood’s celebrations of Queer”, the school system, psychiatry and seemingly every other medical body are unanimous in their agreement with the above. In fact, to disagree may mean you yourself are suffering from a well-known condition, one called homophobia! Oh yes, you and I couldn’t possibly have any substantive reasons for disagreeing with either same sex attraction or transgenderism, due to which anything perceived to the contrary of a total affirmation of same sex desires must be deemed as hatred. Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, two gay-affirming authors, explained: “We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay—even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence. And since no choice is involved, gayness can be no more blameworthy than straightness.”

        You caught that too, right? Even though sexual orientation, according to Marshall and Hunter (pro-gay activists), isn’t necessarily innate, but rather complex in it’s formulation, even involving environmental factors so late as adolescence, they’re happy to insist upon “no choice” being involved in the resultant behaviours of the emerging same sex attraction. “Who cares so long as you’ve got a good angle!” One writer noted. Of course, when people insist on homosexuality being “a choice” they mean to say to indulge in the behaviour isn’t anything other than choice, which would of course be true (unless you’re of the view we’re puppets of the strings of a thoroughly deterministic universe). Gay activists and people against the behaviour/desires than talk past each other, as the advocate of same sex attraction is instead insisting, although the choice to indulge is indeed a choice, it’s the product of an innate desire, one which wasn’t chosen, although are such desires innate? Christl Ruth Vonholdt, a pediatrician and the Director of the German Institute of Youth and Society, explains the evidence to say yes simply isn’t there:

        “There is only one point on which today’s scientists agree: homosexuality is simply not innate. It is true that scientists who are close to the homosexual movement have been trying hard to identify a special gene, specific brain structures and a modified hormone balance as possible causes of homosexuality, but none of these attempts have been successful. The claim that homosexuality is innate is scientifically not tenable.” Similarly, psychologist Lousi A. Berman, wrote: “Inborn, irreversible, natural; like left-handedness. Predictable in its onset and chronic in its duration, like male pattern baldness or adult diabetes. Surprisingly, this “conventional wisdom” survives despite the abundance of evidence that in fact homosexual behaviour comes and goes in the widest variety of ways. It may emerge at 14, or not until well into middles age, or may exist side-by-side an appetite for heterosexual gratification.”

        These above professionals, people who don’t appear to be hateful hate mongers revelling in their hateful hatred appear credible, so too do their findings, how are they so easily dismissed? Likewise an April study in 2008 by the American College of Paediatricians stated: “During the last 40 years the majority of SSA [Same sex attraction] studies have been conduced, reviewed and/or published by homosexual affirming researchers, many of whom are also openingly homosexual. Virtually all of the studies were touted by the media as proving that SSA is inborn. In reality, however, every one of them, from gene analysis, to brain structure, fingerprint styles, handedness, finger length, eye blinking, ear characteristics, verbal skills and prenatal hormones, have failed to be replicated, were criticized for research imitations, and/or were outright debunked.” So, where does the evidence lay? And is it really the people affirming same sex attraction who are the friends of people experiencing these often painful desires? So far as I have found, no, no the people behind this movement are not the friends to same sex attracted people as they claim. They’re advocates of a certain type of world, even a particular posture adopted with regards to their sexuality, though that doesn’t mean they’re in defense of someone feeling these same things, in truth, affirmation, specifically affirmation of same sex desires, isn’t in the best interests of the same sex attracted person. And insofar as the above defenses are concerned, though not being all there science wise, “My genes made me do it!”, even if for the sake of argument we imagined true, wouldn’t stop people from prosecuting someone doomed to possess “the dictator gene”, or stop treatment of an individual genetically predisposed to sex with children of alcohol abuse, so, let’s tackle the challenge for real.

        According to Dr. Charles Socarides, who at the time was considered a leading expert on homosexuality, the APA’s 1973 decision to have homosexuality declassified as a paraphilia involved “the out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists and educators over the past seventy years.” Although an uproar and revolt by professional people ensued, politically active voices continued their protests far louder, as Dr. Rogers H. Wright and Nicholas Cummings, both life long liberals and former presidents of the APA explained: “Within psychology today, there are topics that are deemed politically incorrect, and they are neither published nor funded. Journal editors control what is accepted for publication through those chosen to conduct peer reviews.” They concluded “Censorship exists.” This is of course in reference to our conversation about ex-gay people, or rather, simply people, people who have overcome their sexual preferences for people of the same sex. Are they “repressed”, “maladjusted” and cherry picked by shadowy organizations so to better manipulate a world of hurting homos who simply want to be accepted (often by any means necessary), methinks not.

        In fact, when Wright and Cummings were trying to solicit other professionals to contribute to their important volume, “Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-intentioned Path to Harm”, they noted “many of them (meaning healthcare professionals) declined to be included, fearing loss of tenure or stature, and citing previous ridicule and even vicious attacks. . .” Wright and Cummings insisted that “Political diversity is so absent in mental health circles that most psychologists and social workers live in a bubble. So seldom does anyone express ideological disagreement with colleagues that they believe all intelligent people think as they do. They are aware that conservatives exist, but regard the term intellectual conservative as an oxymoron.” Of course, there’s perhaps nothing more politically charged and far removed from right data than the gay and transexual studies, rather an idealized, whitewashed homosexual couple are presented so to accomplish a supposed scientific study, after which the sheer anecdotal power of these happy smiling men should be enough to convince even the most hard hearted religious bigot. In reality however, the gay community doesn’t recognize these people, they’re simply not a part of their community, they’re in fact an invention adrift of their true selves, their actual community.

        “The clubs were always dark. Corners were darker.” An article in the LA weekly titled “My meth-gay sex nightmare” begins: “Daniel Robison would walk through obscure doorways, high on crystal meth, as the sexual urges rushed through him.” Robinson himself explains the often ignored face of the homosexual community, one not televised or sterilized for the viewer’s pleasure: “I was in it for the pursuit of sex,” he continues: “The first few months into my HIV diagnosis, I thought, ‘No one is going to want me, so I might as well do this now.’” It’s particularly sad to read Daniel thought sex with anonymous men in bathhouses was how they would ultimately “be wanted.” Substance abuse also took on an active role in Daniel’s life, as is the case for an exceptionally large minority of same sex attracted people: ‘Still, Robison says he persisted in using the highly addictive drug for years in bathhouses and sex clubs, where he says disclosing one’s HIV status is not the norm — or even expected. The usual rules don’t apply, he says. “I just assumed everybody was a part of it when I was in a sex club,” Robison recalls: “When you’re high, you just don’t ask or expect those questions. I don’t think people even give it a thought.” Now, the purpose of the above is not to insist every homosexual man is an awful sex addict, or that same sex desires necessarily leads to drug use, rather it’s to say something is amiss in the lives of same sex attracted people, something truly is amiss as the data has always shown, though what’s causing this kind of self-destructive behaviour?

        Cathy Reback, a senior research scientist and head of clinical trials at the “Friends Research Institute” (a gay specific treatment centre) explained with regards to HIV: “It’s still a gay man’s disease in L.A.,” saying further: “HIV in Los Angeles differs greatly from HIV in New York. The virus is largely transmitted through injection drug use in New York and other major American cities. But in Los Angeles, it’s mostly spread through sex.” The article concludes on the subject “The 2011 L.A. County Annual HIV Surveillance Report shows that 83.7 percent of people living with HIV are men who have sex with men (Homosexual and bisexual men).” When reading these starling numbers, trends which are found amidst gay and bisexual men everywhere, my thoughts aren’t only for Daniel, but for the other men he knowingly infected, in essence putting them under a delayed death sentence. Now, when taken into account how the cause/causes of developing same sex attraction are clearly complex (though undoubtedly involving nurture), why would educators and mental health professionals (amidst others) foster an environment in which more gay affirmation would flood young unformed minds by entertainment, education etc? Wouldn’t the environment itself be destroying/risking future generations in a similar way as did Daniel to the anonymous sexual partners he encountered, certainly so. Educators, under the guise of “tolerance and diversity” press on against young people nonetheless, with gay activists firmly taking point (in the form of GLSEN, the gay, lesbian and straight education network). Kevin Jennings, founder and, at the time (2005), Executive director of GLSEN, explains:

        “GLSEN’s tenth anniversary is a cause for celebration. It is a milestone for the organization, for the movement, and most importantly, for America’s students. Let us take this joyous occasion to rededicate ourselves to the work of making nation’s schools places where young people learn to value and respect everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender or gender identity/expression. The next generation deserves nothing less.”

        GLSEN want an end to the abuse of young same sex attracted people in schools, which shouldn’t be called anything less than an admirable goal, for to “be gay” comes attached with a terrible stigma, one due to an element of the gay life or community which onlookers find undesirable, so, insofar as GLSEN believes the situation, to remove bullying by erasing stigma (stigma presumed unjustifiable), they’re doing only good in the life of the young homosexual. Simply connecting the dots of what’s already been shared explains their reasoning perfectly:

        1. There are “gay people”, people born possessing an innate, immutable sexual attraction for people of the same gender.

        2. “And since no choice is involved, gayness can be no more blameworthy than straightness.”

        3. Due being innate and immutable no such thing as an ex-gay exists, merely fraudsters and repressed homosexuals are to be found.

        4. Because stigma or discerning something negative against same sex behaviour/transgenderism isn’t justified, rather is the product of the irrational mental illness of “homophobia”, removing any small criticism of the above could only do good in the life of people already “born this way.” (ending pain and rejection as the result of such things).

        GLSEN, perhaps for how prolific they are, aren’t an obscure fringe group, rather they’re firmly in the mainstream of gay affirming activism and homosexual thought. So, their mission to bring about sweeping “value” and “respect” (noble sounding goals for sure) ought to be studied carefully, even continually for the sake of people concerned with their young child’s education. Although, for studying GLSEN, their case for a gay-inspired curriculum reads as a rather disturbing set of propositions. “Reflections of a Rock Lobster”, an item of the GLSEN recommended reading material in schools section, for example, contains the sexual adventures of a first grade boy, remember, this is supposed to be read to school children (already gay children it’s assumed by GLSEN): “My sexual exploits with my neighbourhood playmates continued. I lived a busy homosexual childhood, somehow managing to avoid venereal disease through all my toddler years. By first grade I was sexually active with many friends. In fact, a small group of us regularly met in the grammar school lavatory to perform fellatio on one another. A typical week’s schedule would be Aaron and Michael on Monday during lunch; Michael and Johnny on Tuesday after school; Fred and Timmy at noon Wednesday; Aaron and Timmy after school on Thursday.”

        Similarly “Passages of Pride”, which describes an encounter of the sexual kind between a minor and stranger they had searched for in the papers, reads like so: “Near the end of Summer, just before starting his sophomore year in high school, Dan picked up a weekly Twin Cities newspaper. Scanning the classifieds, he came upon an ad for a Man-2-man massage. Home alone one day, he called the telephone number listed in the ad and set up an appointment to meet the man named Tom. Tom offered to drive to Zimmerman. So, over the phone, Dan directed him to a secluded road in his subdivision. “Stop where the pavement ends,” Dan told him. A couple of nights later, Dan pulled the broken screen from his bedroom window and slipped out of the house while his parents slept. He hurried to the prearranged rendezvous stop, and there, in the dark of night, he met Tom for the first time, man-to-man. In the back of Tom’s van, the two had sex.’

        Ought children be reading such material as the above, if they’re “born gay” or “born straight” it’s not going to turn their sexual preference (just traumatize their minds I’d imagine), so, are educators and professionals in the medical world uncomfortable yet, appears no. Do ask yourself, or allow me to ask you, why so sexual, why is it that when black people marched for equality they didn’t have “slave and master” booths in their marches, why weren’t they routinely throwing condoms into the crowd of onlooking women and children, nor would they have leather clad “bears” thrusting their crotches in the direction of anyone who would risk a second glance (yet this simply is gay pride). Well, how else do people “come out”, you could answer, as they’re lacking evidence and argument so to affirm desires they desperately want to affirm, for which apparently having anonymous sex in parks and bathroom (practically unheard of in any other community) is their only form of protest. And please remember, the above would be merely a small sampling of recommended reading material supposed “safe” and “beneficial” for children to have read to them in schools, the pornographic and sick (sick if we’re not pulling our punches) material simply continues on into many many more examples. It was the same reading list which came to national attention in 2009, which led to President Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” (Kevin Jennings), who was president of GLSEN during these events, being challenged. Shockingly however, Martin Garner, the chairman of the American Library Association’s Intellectual Freedom Committee launched a defence of Kevin Jennings, GLSEN and these sexually explicit books, saying: “Though Jennings’ and GLSEN’s critics claim to be upholding American morals and values by condemning the GLSEN book list, they are actually undermining the values of tolerance, free inquiry, and self-determination that inform and sustain our democratic way of life in the United States.”

        I may be yesterday’s bigot, but you my friend are tomorrow’s. To even challenge the above, which should be to everybody natural, was being called against the values of free-inquiry and self-determination! (how unpatriotic was the final word). Yet, to the above someone might say “Yes, yes the evidence for the innate, born this way story isn’t exactly strong, fair enough, that does not mean however that there isn’t any evidence or any findings! Places like the APA aren’t just declassifying willy-nilly. Similarly, their failures don’t make your ex-gay ideas true.”

        Indeed, is my reply, the APA even organized a task force in 2009 to investigate whether or not an ex-gay could exist, although, their investigation, rather than being an actual search for truth, was in answer to a pioneering gay rights advocate (Dr. Robert Spitzer) who found men and women certainly had succeeded in changing their same sex desires. Let’s read on to gain a better handle upon who made up the specially picked task force to study ex-gay data: ‘The task force chairperson was the lesbian psychologist Dr. Judith M. Glassgold. Together with Jack Drescher, she edited the book Activism and LGBT Psychology. So two of the six members of the task force (meaning one-third, for those not good at maths) co-authored a book on gay psychological activism, and they both had written a number of other arrives or books that reflect their activist mentality. In fact, Drescher had already written articles and edited books warning that attempts to change one’s sexual orientation were harmful, also referring to ex-gays as “so-called ex-gays.” Another task force member was Dr. Beverly Greene, an African American woman (presumably lesbian). She is the author of articles such as Beyond Heterosexualism and Across the cultural Divide: A Look to the Future.”, and “Lesbian Women of Colour: Triple Jeopardy,” in the book Classics in Lesbian Study. Also on the task force was Dr. Roger L. Worthington, the Assistant Deputy Chancellor and chief Diversity Officer at the University of Missouri [OSC: “Diversity” in this context being code for homosexual desire/gay sex affirming activism] and co-author of the article “Becoming an LGPL-affirmative career advisor: Guidelines for faculty, staff and administrators.”’

        I’m unsure as to whether or not you truly need further quotation to realise the findings of their “careful” investigation! For which we’d be better guided to quote registered nurse and medical reported Kathleen Melonakos, who had previously written: ‘I do not think it is far-fetched to use the analogy that the “drunks are running the rehab centre,”, in reference to the [two APA’s—at least as far as homosexuality is concerned. active homosexuals can hardly be objective about an addictive behaviour they engage in themselves.’ Yet, it’s the above people who are making rulings and denying positions of teaching authority to young professionals who are willing to speak up for the homosexual person’s own mental and physical well-being. In that, they’re a far better friend to the same sex attracted person than anybody in the gay activist scene. “Gay people” are having an opportunity to reform their desires derailed not by the medical data, but by gay activists, many of which don’t want change (with which they claim it impossible!). So much for diversity and tolerance.

        Wayne Besen, an American gay rights advocate and human rights campaigner, typifies the sort of hatred and open air mockery that’s allowed of a person insisting they have overcome their sexual preferences by careful medical care: ‘When MTV-Viacom announced the launching of an all-gay cable network called Logo, Bensen jokingly offered some suggestions for new shows, including: Survivor: In this highly anticipated show, 10 “ex-gays” will be airlifted and placed on an island stocked with sex addicted A&F [Abercrombie & Fitch] models. Each time an ex-gay breaks down and sodomizes, he is booted off the island. This show should have extraordinary ratings, but there is a reasonable fear that none of the ex-gays will make it to the second season.’

        You must wonder (as do I) how much Wayne truly values “human rights” when people and patients exercising their right to self-determination are than fair game for mockery and derision solely on account of upending the “immutable sexual preference” narrative. Aren’t “ex-gays” human, don’t they have rights in the same way others do (undoubtedly yes). The answer to this is simply to deny an ex-gay exists, as if to say there is no escaping the dreaded gay attraction no matter the therapy, for which we are constraint to cast off the entire practice of helping people overcome their same sex attraction. Bob Davies remarks interestingly on the above idea:

        ‘This, of course, is where ex-gay ministries are ridiculed by pro-gay organizations. They say that, if we continue to experience ANY kind of gay thoughts or temptations, then we have not really changed. I find this to be totally unrealistic! I cannot think of any other kind of therapy where, if there are occasional thoughts of the past–or even behavioural lapses—the therapy is immediately said to be totally “unsuccessful.” Think about it for a minute. What about AA—do people give up because they have had one drink? Is the whole organization “trashed” in the media because they do not have a 100% success rate? What about programs for those overcoming sexual addiction? Or drug abuse? Or weight control? Although these issues are not exactly parallel to homosexuality, I believe the general principle is the same: Finding “recovery” is an ongoing process which may indeed be lifelong. Change is not immediate. Change is not total. But change is real and significant. Ask any of our leaders, for example, who were once firmly entrenched in the gay community and today are happily married and raising their families! They may occasionally be tempted by their past. But they have still experienced genuine change!’

        You rightly explain “I think it is a history of forced (and traumatic and failed and damaging) attempts at sexuality change that give it a bad name.” Although, isn’t the homosexual community itself it’s own worst enemy, that and not conservatives, or the religious, or ex-gays? Traumatic, failed and damaging isn’t the life of a successfully ex-gay person today, it’s how the majority of gay and bisexual people are yet living today which is traumatic:

        “According to an August 14, 2009 report, Gays and Lesbians get mental health treatment at twice the rate of heterosexuals, a new study concludes. The group least likely to seek treatment? Heterosexual men. Researchers at the UCLA school of public health studied data from over 2,000 people and found that 48% of lesbian, gay and bisexual men and women have received treatment in the past year, compared to 22% of straight people.” Similarly, gay activist and author Gabriel Rotello stated candidly: “HIV truly strikes us where we live. It means of transmission—sex—is the very thing that to many of us defines us as gay men, drives our politics and our erotics, gives us our modern identity, provides the mortar of much of our philosophy and community, and animates much of our lives.” Gabrial’s confession, I admit in print, to being upsetting, it (meaning sex) is the gay person’s “politics”, their “philosophy” and what “animate much of their lives.”, who would want this for anybody else? They continued: ‘Laurie Garrett reports that DR. June Osborn, an NIH researcher who was one of the first to sound the alarm about STD transmission in gay core groups, had a hard time maintaining a handle on the level of multipartnerism. “Every time we do an NIH site visit, the definition of ‘multiple sex partners’ has changed,” Osborn said in 1980. “First it was ten to twenty partners a year. That was nineteen seventy-five. Then in nineteen seventy-eight we were talking about a hundred sexual partners a year and now we’re using the term to describe five hundred partners in a year. I am,” pronounced Osborn, “duly in awe.”’

        Gabriel Rotello, in their own right wholly committed to homosexuality (feeling such desires in their own life), should be sharing an escape, though they’re unable to perhaps in their own life, for which they imagine no such exit possible. People experiencing these desires want love, they want acceptance and companionship (like everybody), yet, that’s not coming in their community, as noted by the 1984 volume “The male couple”: “. . .of the 156 [homosexual] couples studied, only seven had maintained sexual fidelity; of the hundred couples that had been together for more than five years, none had been able to maintain sexual fidelity. The authors noted that ‘The expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexuals.”

        These findings are echoed by a 2003 study: “Three-quarters of Canadian gay men in relationships lasting longer than one year are not monogamous, according to a limited study presented during the American Sociological Association conference held in Atlanta this week. Barry Adams, a gay professor at the university of Windsor in Canada, last year interviewed 70 gay men who were part of 60 couples for his study, “Relationship Innovation in Male Couples. Those who were monogamous were more likely to be younger, more likely to be in newer, shorter relationships—that is, under three years—and more likely to come form Latino and Asian immigrant groups who said a more romantic approach is what they were sued to,’ Adam said “One reason I think younger men tend to start with the vision of monogamy is because they are coming with a heterosexual script in their head and are applying it to relationships with men.” Adam said “What they don’t see is that the gay community has their own order and own ways that seem to work better.”

        The Torah, as well as most other world religions, have already prefigured this behaviour being dangerous, undesirable, or an “abomination” as the famous Torah quote explains. This isn’t to say what you have in your home is some special knowledge in the Torah material, which in addition to the above material highlights homosexual behaviours and the consequences of said behaviour as problematic, in fact, “A broken clock is right twice a day” would be so satisfactory an answer as to dismiss the reality of an accurate verdict levied against same sex attraction when indulged in. The question would rather be why aren’t trained professionals judging right, or are people to truly believe same sex attracted individuals (who make up so small as between 1% to 3% of most western countries’ population today) so strong as to overturn a robust body of evidence to the curtailing of their lifestyle simply for shouting loud enough? Apparently so. Similar to the objectors of war who once were thrown into insane asylums for believing murder wrong, the medical and political worlds yet again are leading a peculiar charge against the prevailing evidence in favour of some kind of social experiment, an experiment where it’s the same sex attracted who are suffering the greatest casualties, although the blame is in a strange twist shifted back toward society for not affirming same sex desire enough! In an eerily similar way, every time an Islam inspired terrorist attack transpires the Quran and Islam itself are cheered by people, that’s not to say they’re the same, it’s rather to say rather than ask real questions of the desires, behaviours and root causes of the situation, people are yet again turning their guns towards something or someone other than the cause itself, be the object of their scorn white males, Christians, whoever. However, do the accusations stand up to challenge?

        “The usual hypothesis is that societal discrimination against homosexuals is solely or primarily responsible for the development of this pathology. However, specific attempts to confirm this societal discrimination hypothesis have been unsuccessful, and the alternative possibility, that these conditions may somehow be related to the psychological structure of a homosexual orientation or consequences of a homosexual lifestyle, has not been disconfirmed. Indeed, several cross-cultural studies suggest that this higher rate of psychological disturbance is in fact independent of a culture’s tolerance of—or hostility towards—homosexual behaviour. We believe that further research uncompromised by politically-motivated bias should be carried out to evaluate this issue.”

        Am I suffering from the highly publicized mental illness of “homophobia” (the irrational hatred of “gay people”) when I write in love how there is no special class of “gay people” but simply people? People who deserve protection. Am I or is anybody else just overflowing with rage when they say that both myself and the “gay man” are just men, men deserving of truth spoken in love regardless of whether or not the answers are hard for one of the two parties to take? Yes! Modern times yells in response. Yes, it’s me and dissenting professionals not swept away by the mob who should be closeted (they and not “gay people”), that’s the answer apparently. Nevertheless, that’s not going to happen, instead, homosexuals are going to continue to hurt, and people (ex-gays included) are going to continue to be there, an example of that love can be found in a letter written to Dr Dresher (the man already discussed above): ‘After Nightline aired a show focusing on the Journey into Manhood (JiM) weekends, which are designed to help men deal with unwanted sexual attractions, a former JiM participant wrote an email to Dr. Jack Drescher, a gay activist and professional therapist, who spoke against the JiM program on Nightline characterizing it as “dangerous.” His sincere and passionate letter of November 14, 2010 should be taken to heart:

        Dear Dr. Drescher,

        With all due respect, your comments on the ABC Nightline program highlighting the Journey into Manhood weekend (as well as several similar ones you have made to the same effect about reparative therapy) as being “dangerous” are ill-informed and simply naive. If you were truly interested in the facts whether such concepts work or not, you would do a real study with actual men who have chosen to change in order to draw your conclusions.

        I do not know if you have actually done your own study, but I would doubt that any such study of yours would compare with the positive results of the efforts of the men who not only created the Journey into Manhood weekend but through such efforts witnessed more than 1200 men go through more than 50 such weekends over a ten year period. (They also testified on Nightline about their own ability to change sexual orientation.) On two occasions, they actually conducted follow up studies of those who went through the weekends and both studies found that the overwhelming majority of those who went through the weekend can and do change sexual orientation, particularly when motivated by their personal spirituality, deeply held values and beliefs, a desire to have a family, and a desire to heal emotional pain.

        If you were really interested in the truth, you would be saying to yourself, “wow, look what these men have been doing for the past decade; I ought to go check this out to see if there is really something to this!” The fact is there IS something to what these guys are doing. I attended JiM 16 in 2005 and it made a significant difference in my life. I always thought that professionals such as you would be interested in a client being able to obtain his/her goals in life, and would be equally interested in knowing what worked for them in order to accomplish their objectives. I don’t know why you insist on being so adamantly opposed to this work. Do you really not care about people like us at all? The fact is, people are not “born gay”, and you do not have one shred of evidence to prove that premise to be the case. If men like us want to deal with unwanted SSA, why should you object? The APA should be interested in helping men like us to accomplish what we want for our own lives. Instead you oppose us and call a process that has worked for us to be “dangerous”.

        I’ll tell you what Jack: my life was a whole lot more dangerous when I was living a lifestyle not meant for me (gay) than it is now as a husband and father. You don’t seem to care about men in these similar situations. My own personal life is a testimony to the accuracy of the presentation on the Nightline program and the efficacy of the concept that people can change. I never wanted to be “gay.” I lived a double life for a long time. By exercising my free will, I choose to neither identify nor believe I was gay; rather I chose to live a heterosexual life and to conform my inner most feelings and emotions to that view. The path I chose was consistent with the APA 1973 decision removing homosexuality from the DSM. It there stated,”Psychiatrists… will continue to try to help homosexuals who suffer from what we can now refer to as Sexual orientation disturbance, helping the patient accept or live with his current sexual orientation, OR IF HE DESIRES, HELPING HIM TO CHANGE IT” (emphasis mine). The APA did not opine, as you do, that such therapy is dangerous. Rather the concept of “dangerous” is a spin that you and your colleagues have created to deter people like myself from exercising our free rights of patient determination.

        Through counseling, experiential weekends such as JiM, and other strategies prevalent within the “ex-gay” movement, I have succeeded in not only changing my behavior patterns but have also changed my sexual fantasies, arousals, and identity. I have done it, and I’m happier for it–does that not matter to you? If it really doesn’t matter to you, then I can only conclude that you have a personal agenda and will press forward with your own unsubstantiated beliefs regardless of evidence to the contrary. If you were a true science oriented professional guided by clinical results and honest inquiry, you would be interviewing men like us and asking lots of questions. What you say can’t happen IS in fact happening right before your eyes! You simply choose to turn your head the other way. Is there no honesty in your profession anymore? If people in my own profession ignored the facts in a similar way, we would be driven out of leadership. I am simply aghast at your response on Nightline and the audacious position other gay advocates within the APA have taken. You have apparently ceased searching for truth and have unfortunately replaced integrity with pushing a politically correct social agenda instead. You’re more than welcome to call and discuss this with me, but I will not be surprised of you don’t.

        Sincerely, Steve.

        Are the above the words of a “repressed” and “maladjusted” person, as your views once explained. Picked, edited and pre-prepared so to best suit the agenda of the documentary makers (as you explained), whereas the APA’s task force, legions of same sex propagandists who “zapped” the American Psychological Association into overturning their scientific study are well-adjusted and liberated individuals. Free and at liberty to enjoy the fruits of their desires, which are (I’m pained to write) HIV and AIDS, syphilis, infidelity and the doomed war of affirmation they fight to make others believe a large section of loving, good hearted people who have overcome their desires don’t exist. The pain is evident, though ignored. A may 2006 report on Advocate.com, reads “Rise in US syphilis rates linked almost entirely to gay and bisexual men”, continuing: “The overall rate of syphilis diagnoses increased in the United States from 1999 to 2004, but the rise is attributed almost exclusively to gay and bisexual men, among whom syphilis infections have dramatically risen, researchers said this week at the National STD Prevention Conference in Jacksonville, Fla. Infection rates actually fell in most other populations during that time frame, including among women, African-Americans, and babies born to women infected with the STD.” Gay men make up roughly 3% of the American population, yet the article goes on to explain they are inflicted by over 64% of all new cases of syphilis in 2004, are medical professionals finally ready to tackle why it’s the gay community who are so tortured, apparently no. Similarly, homosexual men make up around 1.2% of the population of the UK, yet are responsible for over 50% of all HIV infections in the nation, add to the above that bisexual men who have sex with other men are adding to the figures, meaning homosexual sex is most likely involved in far more than 50%.

        Surely to talk of “agendas” ought to make people scoff after reading the GLSEN lunch box (an odd collection of “games” seemingly listing great homosexuals in history, many of whom actually appear to be man-boy lovers), or the APA’s task force of openly gay and lesbian activists who are deciding on matters of ex-gays and their mental and sexual health! (not to mention their patient determination). It’s due to the above that there’s no end of pain in sight for the gay community, just more hurt and misplaced anger towards myself and others, an unending cycle of the community destroying itself and lashing out at the heterosexual world for their way of life, even darker is how the “tolerance” and “diversity” when truly unmasked is a one way street, as anything which the gay activist deems “offensive” (including the ex-gays existence) must be vilified, mocked and destroyed. Christians too in their undoubtedly hateful stead are to be muzzled, caged and generally forced into places of secret rather than allowed to share their cruel creed.

        1. A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney’s costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony.

        2. A psychologist is Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.

        3. Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.

        4. A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practising sex outside of traditional marriage.

        The fundamental problem with the above position of the gay and transgender activists, every lie, every insult, is that they’re not simply attacking the identity of an ex-gay, or even my religious beliefs, it’s that they’re out to undermine the most basic of freedoms, the freedom to believe in what you choose to believe in, it’s an attempt to destroy a private conscience, replacing it with a public one. So, do ex-gays exist, certainly, are they deserving of our respect and study, yes, just so much as same sex desires are, yet neither are being honestly studied because of politics, even dangerous politics which appear to undermine our ability to discuss openly the things we are writing on today. Christians are hurting for the same sex attracted, and the same sex attracted aren’t even allowed the liberty to think unintimidated that they might truly find a different kind of freedom, something better, more loving and safer than how they’re being told they must live by mainstream culture. That’s not liberating, that’s slavery.

        Like

      • I have a number of issues going through, like wondering how something that is the result of nature and nurture can be said to be a matter of choice, or how, knowing that not all gays are drug-addicted, HIV-spreading sex-addicts, that those that are are somehow evidence of some sort of deficit in the lives of gay people inherently. But, really, at bottom, my question is simply this: what’s your point?
        Imagine it was back 500 years ago and there was precisely no arguments about where homosexuality and transgenderism came from. What’s your point? There isn’t evidence that a person can become straight and therefore be happier. There isn’t evidence that being gay causes harm to others. And, if you’re willing to speculate that being converted to being straight would make a gay person happier, I’m equally happy to speculate both that (a) that has nothing inherently to do with homosexuality, but this homophobes and bullying and (b) you’d be happier if you were converted to homosexuality.

        Like

      • I dare write the questions you posed have already been answered (for your benefit of course). Imagine my joy to see you had replied, only then to find how unmoved you appear to be by the extraordinary preponderance of data going against you (aren’t you disturbed by so thorough an academic response to your seemingly unscientific and propagandized views?). The reply itself reads as so pedestrian. Yet line up your views as previously stated, for surely you can’t write in good conscience that nothing in the above would serve to if accurate totally invalidate and/or undermine the credibility of these positions you hold:

        “I believe they are not hurting others, that homosexuality is not ‘curable’ and not an affliction, and gay people have every right to love who they want and act, consensually, in accordance with that. So, for the removal of any doubt, I am pro-gay.” The “it’s not” list reads like so. . .

        “It’s not harming anybody!”

        “It’s not curable!”

        “It’s not an affliction!”

        They’re not harming others, they’re not harming themselves, they’re not able to change (or be “cured”), which may just be your ideological preferences talking, as if to say they’re not being “cured” as it’s not some physical disease, yet by another message you explained how there surely are people who have outgrown or overcame their homosexual desires (hence changed if not cured, if cured has too negative a connotation), only next adding a bit of a puerile jib at their expense: “The ones I’ve seen in interviews appear repressed and maladjusted, but they were probably picked for interview and edited to meet the agenda of the documentary maker. Perhaps there are some ex-gays, but there are also people quite damaged and doing nothing more than pretending to be ex-gay.”

        My above reply explained how you are mistaken, yet you’re not totally discerning that, for which lets review some of your reply. “I have a number of issues going through, like wondering how something that is the result of nature and nurture can be said to be a matter of choice,” Now, my sharing from Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen might have misled you as to there actually being some genetic factors which lead into people “being born gay” (however there’s none, literally nothing to suggest genetic sources for the desire/behaviour), rather the gay activists quoted merely are conceding an enormous point by writing how environment has so big an impact of sexual attraction. They certainly would prefer genetic justification, though they’re finding none, due to which they simply assert that they have the genetic data while conceding to the wealth of material which shows environment and upbringing as having an impact on sexual preference. Even entertaining the genetic link justification brings about an arrays of hilarious and absurd questions (as shown above), for example, genetic links to obesity don’t mean babies are predestine to be larger adults, nor does it mean women are doomed to give birth to massively overweight babies! Predisposition (which doesn’t even exist with regards to homosexuals) isn’t predestination, nonetheless, as already explained, hopes of finding some genetic factor has been exhausted and shown to be lacking.

        You next insist on writing “not all gays!” with regards to the disproportionate sexually transmitted diseases, mental health care resources, infidelity and misery that by way of the hard data professionals find besetting the community. Think on my next point, homosexuals are more likely to harm themselves than anybody in the ex-gay or heterosexual community, they’re more likely to abuse their own bodies (self cutting) to cope with mental issues and the bodies of other people experiencing same sex attraction, against the evidence they blame you, me and everybody for not being gay friendly enough when such events as these happen. Same sex attracted people are insisting they stand out in such a way that makes them an open target for abuse, ignoring everything the APA actually were proving before political pressure groups forced their leadership to discontinue an honest study of the subject, yet, bi-sexual people, who could more easily “blend” into an overly heterosexually biased society, are too in these high risk groups for mental disturbances, breakdowns, depression, self-harm etc. Isn’t that interesting, the B in LGBT, despite being better equipped to avoid such pitfalls, appears to also be afflicted somehow. Totally going against your claims that same sex unions are either “not harming” or even “not afflicting” was the original APA’s classification of same sex attraction as being an endangering paraphilia, paraphilia meaning: “a condition characterized by abnormal sexual desires, typically involving extreme or dangerous activities.” Why was that classification wrong and your version right, because thus far the data is heavily against you, whereas propaganda is the only thing people you already agree with have provided.

        You replied after: “And, if you’re willing to speculate that being converted to being straight would make a gay person happier, I’m equally happy to speculate both that (a) that has nothing inherently to do with homosexuality, but this homophobes and bullying and (b) you’d be happier if you were converted to homosexuality.”

        Homophobia! Of course. Let’s refresh: “The usual hypothesis is that societal discrimination against homosexuals is solely or primarily responsible for the development of this pathology. However, specific attempts to confirm this societal discrimination hypothesis have been unsuccessful, and the alternative possibility, that these conditions may somehow be related to the psychological structure of a homosexual orientation or consequences of a homosexual lifestyle, has not been disconfirmed. Indeed, several cross-cultural studies suggest that this higher rate of psychological disturbance is in fact independent of a culture’s tolerance of—or hostility towards—homosexual behaviour. We believe that further research uncompromised by politically-motivated bias should be carried out to evaluate this issue.” Speculation would either be founded or unfounded, mine is as shown above firmly founded, so much so as to name it speculation may just be an error on your part, whereas your speculation is founded upon seemingly nothing but your personal desire to not be mistaken. The weakest of defenses is to cry homophobia to any and every expression which honestly, accurately engages with the root causes and clear consequences of indulging in same sex desires (where’s the intellectual integrity in that?)

        Why so passionate a denial of ex-gays and displeasure of ex-gay ministries as shadowy organizations who have maladjusted (which I imagine is afflicting) people for their agenda, yet apparently zero knowledge of the APA and the clear untold damage they have done by helping to facilitate an environment in which people are told homosexual behaviour is “normal”, “non-damaging” to one’s own self and “safe” in the life of others, as that’s the very opposite of a paraphilia! (which homosexuality was classified as while the APA were yet interested in doing real science). Insofar as your messages have read, ex-gay ministries are with a failed and damaging history of changing sexuality, yet as has been shown it’s more likely your criteria is simply a sham: “This, of course, is where ex-gay ministries are ridiculed by pro-gay organizations. They say that, if we continue to experience ANY kind of gay thoughts or temptations, then we have not really changed. I find this to be totally unrealistic! I cannot think of any other kind of therapy where, if there are occasional thoughts of the past–or even behavioural lapses—the therapy is immediately said to be totally “unsuccessful.” Think about it for a minute. What about AA—do people give up because they have had one drink? Is the whole organization “trashed” in the media because they do not have a 100% success rate? What about programs for those overcoming sexual addiction? Or drug abuse? Or weight control? Although these issues are not exactly parallel to homosexuality, I believe the general principle is the same: Finding “recovery” is an ongoing process which may indeed be lifelong. Change is not immediate. Change is not total. But change is real and significant. Ask any of our leaders, for example, who were once firmly entrenched in the gay community and today are happily married and raising their families! They may occasionally be tempted by their past. But they have still experienced genuine change!”

        The twisted view held by others in the mainstream, views you rarely depart from, is to say people who are troubled by their homosexuality and then seek change merely have internalized homophobia enforced by society’s prejudices against homosexuals, yet, not only do studies not bear that theory out, but it’s just extraordinary how pro-gay people can so wrongly assume the only possible reason someone could have disinterest in living as a homosexual would be because of outside influences from anti-homo society (have these people never felt an internal conviction of their own?)

        Whether pro-gay activists are happy or not they’re equally unable to deny the work of organizations like Exodus international, PFOX, JONAH (Jews offering alternative healing), OneByOne, Evergreen international or even the non-religious Gender Menders and People can Change! England, American and others “solved” the problem by banning the practice or disseminating waves of false information against the successful material, dooming every same sex attracted person to their supposed innate (though clearly not innate) and immutable (though clearly not immutable) sexual disposition. What’s my point, you ask, although to have to explain my many many points again would just be me talking down to you. You also made an odd remark, not necessarily odd, just odd in light of the charge of determinism which has been laid against you, since you shared “like wondering how something that is the result of nature and nurture can be said to be a matter of choice,” now, I’ve answered that in writing predisposition isn’t predestination, Sir Francis Collins says likewise. Yet, to ask you point blank, do you agree (though you wouldn’t be agreeing) with metaphysical determinism? Are you choosing to reply to me right now, or are you just reacting in some sort of choiceless puppet show? You share sincerely you’re struggling with the idea of having an accurate belief, which would feed into the entire scheme of determinism, for which I’m sure you’ll write plain.

        This to me is very disturbing, as you’re a teacher (an excellent one I’m sure), but to not believe in accurate beliefs, that must make teaching people a bit of a freak side show when nobody can have an accurate belief as to what you’re teaching.

        Dr. Robin H. Gorsline makes my view more pronounced by their utterly strange “Let Us Bless Our Angels: A Feminist-Gay-Male-Liberation View of Sodom”, in which they note: “Gay liberation is deeply suspicious of attempts, however well intentioned, to address the issues of homosexuality in the Bible. The issue is not of homosexuality and whether or not the Bible sustains, condemns, or is neutral about it. Neither canonical testament [meaning neither the Torah or New Testament] carries any authority for gay liberation on the subject of homosexuality. Gay liberation interprets the scripture, not the other way around.” Now, imagine the above method versus our best attempts at proper hermeneutics, and just imagine the sort of unjewish conclusions the above method would come to (they’re pretty bad, so bad I’d be reluctant to share the perverse content), there’s a good, better, best approach entering in here, as if the positions are so thoroughly different from one sort of method to the others, than one is surely more faithful to the writer’s original beliefs than the other, and if one is nearer to the belief, one is more faithful to the author’s original intention, and if one modern belief is more faithful, it’s more accurate. Wouldn’t you agree?

        Could Papias, who lived contemporaneously to the disciple John, even learning from John himself or people who had been discipled by John, have arrived at an opinion of the beloved disciple that better conformed to the reality of the beloved disciple than does the queer theologians beliefs about the same person? As in, could there be two beliefs where one better conformed to the referent? They’re both such wildly differing conclusions that it’s abundantly obvious to me how one of the two descriptions has to be more accurate than the other, hence more accurate and justifiably held a belief or viewpoint.

        Like

      • This question was originally the last thing I wrote, but I think it may actually be the thing I’m most interested in knowing your answer to: If you are, as you allude to, all about the free choice and not “dooming every […] person to their supposed innate (though clearly not innate) and immutable (though clearly not immutable) sexual disposition”, what would be your view on people choosing sexuality realignment to become gay?

        Here’s the major flaw with the argument as presented. I could play Devil’s Advocate and accept nearly everything you’ve written, and it still has no bearing on the question of the morality of homosexuality.

        I’m not sure why you’re dragging me into this conversation before finishing the one we were having about morality, but he’s my response.

        If we were having this conversation over a pint in a pub, I know I’d have interrupted you several times to ask “so?”. That’s because there is nothing in your two long comments that actually explicates why homosexuality (the preference or the actions) are immoral. You say homosexuality causes harm, but when I posited the possibility that is due to homophobic bullying and not inherent to homosexuality itself (note use of the word “possibility”), the research you present argues that neither position–homophobic bullying or inherent to homosexuality itself–is supported by the evidence. So, we could both throw speculations at the wall until the universe suffers a heat death, but apparently the actual evidence simply isn’t in. So, again, what’s your point?

        Remember, homosexuality isn’t simply the act. It’s a preference. I have never chosen to be attracted to women, but I am; in fact I have noted the amount of simplification that would go on in my life if I were attracted to men instead. But, I’m not. And I can’t choose otherwise. If you think it’s a choice, make the sacrifice: choose to be gay for a month and see if there’s any sincere attraction that goes on in the mean time. And then make a Channel 4 documentary about your compassionate journey to understand, and back again.

        I could probably “cure” you of a distaste for broccoli. My brother was “cured” of a preference for meat and dairy by his vegan girlfriend. Even if sexuality realignment therapy could be shown to be as effective or more effective than AA or other behavioural therapies, and even if this could be done without harm or damage to the individual, what does this demonstrate? It doesn’t show it’s an ailment that can be cured, just because it can be changed. Preferences can be changed, that doesn’t make them ailments and doesn’t make the change a cure. And the definition of paraphilia help you here as it doesn’t necessarily extend to homosexuality — it explicitly refers to dangerous activity. “Abnormal” is one of those wiggle words one often finds in law and policy. That’s what you’d need, though, right? You’d need that definition to define homosexuality as an ailment so you could use the language of “dooming” and “cured”. And then you need to steadfastly hold, unwaiveringly, in that definition.

        You talk about data, but there’s no data here. There’s some books with stuff that can’t make peer reviewed journal articles because–would you believe it–the liberal elites are conspiring against it! I’ve heard that before. In everything. I’ve read a book that claims placebos are as effective as antidepressants written by a doctor, whose own published and peer-reviewed research says the exact opposite thing: that antidepressants are cost-effective and perform better than placebo.

        And you haven’t presented data: percentages or comparisons. You haven’t presented methods with acknowledgements of selection bias. You haven’t presented an academic argument. You’ve got sources and words, but if I tried to make a bullet pointed list of the argument presented relevant to the question of the morality of homosexuality, I’d have nothing.

        And you’re also arguing against stuff I haven’t said, but you’re aware some people do say, then calling that propaganda and just lumping me in with that. It’s exactly what you did when you made ‘valuing wellbeing’ the ideas of the Nazis and Soviets; just lump everything into the propaganda you’re aware of. It isn’t worth my time to maintain an open dialogue with someone who doesn’t care what I’m saying.

        Not only that, but you misrepresent what it is scientists are doing; they are trying to understand homosexuality. And as even an A-level biologist can tell you not even eye colour and hair colour are controlled by ‘single genes’, scientists with PhDs in the field are not looking for a ‘gay gene’; maybe they are looking for a geneplex, or an epigenetic phenomenon… but not a ‘single gene’. But such an argument is a red herring anyway. Even given complete freedom, where anyone could choose to be attracted to anyone, without genetic or hormonal or developmental bias, regardless of gender, in a world with complete freewill, I still don’t see the moral problem with homosexuality.

        Your argument that the research is biased is irrelevant. Until you can get access to the suppressed research, with methodology, and reasons it didn’t make peer review, you haven’t shown it’s biased. Just like the creation scientists who claim they’re being suppressed, all you have is the accusation. But even then, you’d need the independently replicated studies to show the ‘suppressed’ research is even reliable. And even then, even if all the research is biased, even if everyone has lied every step of the way, that doesn’t explain why gay people should not be allowed to live out their lives as they have “chosen”. In the same way you accused me of not talking moral terms, neither are you.

        Let’s say I have a predisposition to cancer, heart disease, liver disease or diabetes. One can see that I have certain choices about my exposure to carcinogens, my diet, my exercise regime and my lifestyle that can mitigate risk. Explicitly, I can avoid doughnuts, run more, be topless in the sun less and not eat burnt toast. What choices could one make to not develop the gay, given a predisposition?

        To word that differently, I’ll play Devil’s Advocate and accept your unsupported claim that homosexuality is not predetermined by anything outside the control of the person, except for some probabilistic predisposition. So what? What actions could they take to avoid that? And given that you don’t know the answer to that, where’s the free choice?

        And as a final note on this comment, I don’t recall being all that interested in this discussion. It was an aside or a footnote. I don’t believe in God’s authority, mostly because I don’t believe in a God, therefore I don’t care about religious views on homosexuality. I care about whether it causes harm, an issue on which you’ve only been able to say ‘there’s no evidence it doesn’t cause harm’. That is insufficient. When there is evidence it does cause harm, then I’ll be willing to enter into a discussion of trading off ‘harm by homosexuality’ vs ‘harm by suppression of liberty’ discussions. But there was a discussion I thought we were both interested in–morality–that you’ve entirely abandoned.

        To summarise:
        (1) Should I be allowed to choose to be gay?
        (2) There’s no evidence being gay inherently causes harm.
        (3) The ‘suppressed research’ accusation wouldn’t be relevant even if it could be supported.
        (4) You haven’t explicated the moral problem with homosexuality.
        (5) My sexuality wasn’t a choice; I don’t see how homosexuality could have been.
        (6) Even if it is a predisposition that can be mitigated, how? (No answer = no choice.)
        (7) ‘Change’ does not equal ‘cure’.
        (8) “Even given complete freedom, where anyone could choose to be attracted to anyone, without genetic or hormonal or developmental bias, regardless of gender, in a world with complete freewill, I still don’t see the moral problem with homosexuality.”

        Like

      • Let’s not be evasive now, my friend. I’ve asked plainly.

        Yet, to ask you point blank, do you agree (though you wouldn’t be agreeing) with metaphysical determinism? Are you choosing to reply to me right now, or are you just reacting in some sort of choiceless puppet show? You share sincerely you’re struggling with the idea of having an accurate belief, which would feed into the entire scheme of determinism, for which I’m sure you’ll write plain.

        This to me is very disturbing, as you’re a teacher (an excellent one I’m sure), but to not believe in accurate beliefs, that must make teaching people a bit of a freak side show when nobody can have an accurate belief as to what you’re teaching.

        Dr. Robin H. Gorsline makes my view more pronounced by their utterly strange “Let Us Bless Our Angels: A Feminist-Gay-Male-Liberation View of Sodom”, in which they note: “Gay liberation is deeply suspicious of attempts, however well intentioned, to address the issues of homosexuality in the Bible. The issue is not of homosexuality and whether or not the Bible sustains, condemns, or is neutral about it. Neither canonical testament [meaning neither the Torah or New Testament] carries any authority for gay liberation on the subject of homosexuality. Gay liberation interprets the scripture, not the other way around.” Now, imagine the above method versus our best attempts at proper hermeneutics, and just imagine the sort of unjewish conclusions the above method would come to (they’re pretty bad, so bad I’d be reluctant to share the perverse content), there’s a good, better, best approach entering in here, as if the positions are so thoroughly different from one sort of method to the others, than one is surely more faithful to the writer’s original beliefs than the other, and if one is nearer to the belief, one is more faithful to the author’s original intention, and if one modern belief is more faithful, it’s more accurate. Wouldn’t you agree?

        Could Papias, who lived contemporaneously to the disciple John, even learning from John himself or people who had been discipled by John, have arrived at an opinion of the beloved disciple that better conformed to the reality of the beloved disciple than does the queer theologians beliefs about the same person? As in, could there be two beliefs where one better conformed to the referent? They’re both such wildly differing conclusions that it’s abundantly obvious to me how one of the two descriptions has to be more accurate than the other, hence more accurate and justifiably held a belief or viewpoint.

        I’m looking forward to answering that last message in full later on.

        Like

      • I have no idea what that passage is on about. I’m not being invasive; the passage makes no sense because it’s too vague. I can’t posit guesses at what you’re on about.
        Rev. Dr Robin H Gorsline appears to be saying that the Bible says what the Bible says, regardless of what civil rights activists say is says. That’s irrelevant.
        Then you seem to be imploring me to investigate the consequences of not giving a damn what the Bible says, vs giving a damn what the Bible says, suggesting the consequences would be “so bad I’d be reluctant to share the perverse content”. I have no idea what you mean or what you’re getting at. No idea.

        As to this question: “there’s a good, better, best approach entering in here, as if the positions are so thoroughly different from one sort of method to the others, than one is surely more faithful to the writer’s original beliefs than the other, and if one is nearer to the belief, one is more faithful to the author’s original intention, and if one modern belief is more faithful, it’s more accurate. Wouldn’t you agree?”
        What are you talking about? Which author? Which methods? What constitutes “good”? Why should I give a damn about that authors intentions? What are the authors intentions? “Faithful” in what sense? Accurate, compared to what referent? A Biblical referent? If so, “so?” What do I care is Papias had a better view of what Paul thought than a modern Rev. Dr. Robin H Gorseline? I don’t. It’s not relevant.
        At best guess, I’d say that you were arguing there are better and worse ways of interpreting the Bible. But I am less than 50% confident that is what you’re getting at. But, if that is what you’re getting at, “so?”.

        Like

      • What you yourself have described as a major flaw in my argument would only in fact be a major flaw if I were arguing in the here and now that either experiencing homosexual desires or acting on homosexual desires was immoral (which I’ve yet to claim). Instead my replies have simply asked questions of your supposed statements of fact, for you’re writing no physical harm is done by male on male sexuality/same sex attraction (which is demonstrably untrue both mentally and physically). I’ve yet to actually describe either experiencing homosexual desires, or acting on said desires as immoral (how you gathered the immorality of gayness from what I’ve tried to express so with compassionate is a shame), although you may be simply trying to quicken the pace by forcing our conversation about your opinion on homosexuality/ex-gays into one over moral values. A conversation which would for time come, though you sometimes appear so distrustful of myself there’s a real effort on my part in trying to have the conversation flow naturally. You should be on guard against reading into my messages ideas and condemnation that’s never intended, as to do that would make you extremely defensive and confused as to where the conversation is actually at. You’re right in that I could simply reply “Jesus condemned homosexual sex” and be done, though that’s not my intention. Let’s return therefore to the topic of conversation you insist on not having. Do you agree with metaphysical determinism? (that’s three times you’ve been asked now).

        You’re also misunderstanding the fairly plain quote by Dr Robin H. Gorsline, for which let’s review again: “Gay liberation is deeply suspicious of attempts, however well intentioned, to address the issues of homosexuality in the Bible. The issue is not of homosexuality and whether or not the Bible sustains, condemns, or is neutral about it. Neither canonical testament [meaning neither the Torah or New Testament] carries any authority for gay liberation on the subject of homosexuality. Gay liberation interprets the scripture, not the other way around.”

        You read the quotation to mean: “Rev. Dr Robin H Gorsline appears to be saying that the Bible says what the Bible says, regardless of what civil rights activists say is says.” Although that’s not exactly relevant to the plain sense of the quote, as you’re neglecting the context in which it’s carefully shared. Dr Gorsline is explaining how their method for understanding Scripture isn’t to employ the sort of sophisticated Biblical hermeneutics as would a Richard Swinburne, E. P Sanders or even the likes of Gerd Ludemann (sceptical scholars), rather they’re interpreting Scripture only in light of “gay liberation”. Similar tactics are sometimes described as “cruising” the Scriptures (I’m not making this stuff up!)

        Gay pastor (I kid you not) Timothy R. Koch in an article titled “Cruising as Methodology: Homoeroticism and the Scriptures” explained cruising to be “the name gay men give to using our own ways of knowing, our own desire for connection, our own savvy and instinct, our own responses to what compels us.” In plain speak, Tim searches the Bible for queer characters, even expecting to find “some friends, some enemies, a lot who don’t care one way or the other (or else they don’t really ‘do anything’ for us!) – and a few really hot numbers!” Now, maybe you can finally understand what’s meant by me being reluctant to share the sort of perverse conclusions which queer methodology can produce (as it wasn’t in any way a slight against you). The above is of course asking you to get real about an earlier problem of yours, as you shared you’re struggling with the idea of having an accurate belief with regards to holding to (believing in) right doctrine. Allow for me to help you more on this front, for which an example of gay methodology and Matthew 18:20 would be in order, beginning first by Matthew, than the clearly queer misrepresentation:

        “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

        Readers have beliefs about the above material, the question is are some beliefs more accurate than others, they are certainly opposing beliefs, for which people would assume one nearer to the author’s original intention than the other, or even closer to Jesus’ intention while teaching than the other perspective. You however are struggling, writing how you’re not sure, you’re confused or not able to square holding accurate views because of something else in your mind (determinism perhaps?). Perhaps gay theology can help nudge you in the right direction hereafter, as queer theologians too have an interpretation of the above quotation from Matthew. Prof. Kathy Rudy in her “Where Two or More Are Gathered: Using Gay Communities as a Model for Christian Ethics,” article explains, even going so far as to apply the words of Jesus to random anonymous sexual encounters between homosexual men!:

        “Each sexual encounter after that [in a bathroom or bar] shores up his membership in the community he finds there; and his participation and contribution subsequently makes the community he finds stronger for others. His identify begins to be defined by the people he meets in those spaces. Although he may not know the names of each of his sexual partners, each encounter resignifies his belonging [OSC: Hauntingly familiar to Daniel’s tortured life in the above]. And although no two members of the community make steadfast promises to any one person in the community, each in his own way promises himself as a part of this world. Intimacy and faithfulness in sex are played out on the community rather than the individual level.”

        That’s the proper understanding of Matthew chapter 18?! Gay men giving their bodies up to an anonymous community of men for public acts of promiscuity, and in that Prof. Rudy insists “faithfulness in sex” is exemplified (oh the irony). Were the beliefs of Martin Luther, John Calvin and Papias with regards to Matthew’s biography as or more faithful to the author’s original intention than those of Prof. Kathy Rudy? Asking you these such questions would be funny if not for the fact you may claim one interpretation just as accurate as another. Once more, the only thing holding a person back would be some kind of deterministic view that postulates beliefs as neither accurate or inaccurate because they aren’t really real (do you believe in belief, I wonder 😛 )

        You continue by way of an increasingly flustered and inaccurate message (much to my disappointment): ‘What are you talking about? Which author? Which methods? What constitutes “good”? Why should I give a damn about that authors intentions? What are the authors intentions? “Faithful” in what sense? Accurate, compared to what referent? A Biblical referent? If so, “so?” What do I care is Papias had a better view of what Paul thought than a modern Rev. Dr. Robin H Gorseline? I don’t.’

        I’m unsure as to whether you’re making so many errors due to skim reading, anger or due to just not understanding the topic properly, however, you and I are discussing the beloved Disciple (that’s John, not Paul). Similarly, you didn’t appear to know ‘Give unto Caesar’ doesn’t belong to the Torah, it’s rather a saying of Jesus, it’s a New Testament teaching: ‘And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.’ (Matthew 22:20-22).

        You mistakenly thought however ‘Give unto Caesar’ an Old Testament teaching, for you wrote: “In fact, the only thing the Old Testament does, so far as I can see, to reprimand slavery is the ‘Give unto Caesar’ thing (interpreted as ‘obey the laws of the land’) and that only works because now the law of the land does outlaw slavery.”

        Now, when you begin by writing “in fact,” it’s important to write something factual afterwards. 🙂 In like fashion you didn’t understand the clear Biblical distinction between moral and ceremonial laws, the historical credibility of Jesus over Mohammad, in addition to many other unnamed errors. You replying by “Am I bothered?” isn’t appropriate, rather you have to finally address some of your original statements as I’ve asked. You’re wrestling with views seemingly so embarrassing that you must have the question posed to you repeatedly to no reply, surely you’ve got spare time in your bullet points for a yes/no answer.

        Your fervor to drive our discussion in some particular route means you’re neglecting the very meaningful topic happening right in front of you, nonetheless, your upcoming point I found particularly misguided, let’s found out why (even if perhaps you agree too), as you wrote: ‘You say homosexuality causes harm, but when I posited the possibility that is due to homophobic bullying and not inherent to homosexuality itself (note use of the word “possibility”), the research you present argues that neither position–homophobic bullying or inherent to homosexuality itself–is supported by the evidence.’

        The study you’re referring to concluded like so: “The usual hypothesis (OSC: Meaning your hypothesis) is that societal discrimination against homosexuals is solely or primarily responsible for the development of this pathology. However, specific attempts to confirm this societal discrimination hypothesis have been unsuccessful, and the alternative possibility, that these conditions may somehow be related to the psychological structure of a homosexual orientation or consequences of a homosexual lifestyle, has not been disconfirmed. Indeed, several cross-cultural studies suggest that this higher rate of psychological disturbance is in fact independent of a culture’s tolerance of—or hostility towards—homosexual behaviour. We believe that further research uncompromised by politically-motivated bias should be carried out to evaluate this issue.”

        Now, once over, for your benefit: ‘several cross-cultural studies suggest that this higher rate of psychological disturbance is in fact INDEPENDENT of a culture’s tolerance of—OR HOSTILITY towards—homosexual behaviour.’

        Meaning, whether society is an unashamed homo hating bigot barn burner of a nation, or even a gay friendly utopia, an increased rate of psychological disturbance is found. Moreover NARTH explained “We believe that further research uncompromised by politically-motivated bias should be carried out to evaluate this issue.” So, despite many efforts by gay affirming or actually same sex attracted people to prove their higher rates of mental instability best attributed to anything other than their own state, they have failed. For which it’s abundantly clear your speculation is unfounded, rather it’s again motivated by something other than the evidence.

        Afterward you explained there are differences between homosexuality as a preference (“being” gay) and homosexuality as behvaior (doing gay), an oversimplification, especially so if indeed you believe there’s no immaterial aspect to people, though not so untrue as many points you’ve shared, then the challenge is laid down, after explaining how much easier your life as a newly out and proud gay man would be, you next asked if I would dare to be gay myself! (“Pastor” Timothy cruising your messages would be simply elated right now). Though this has already been clarified in my first message, rather than being innate and immutable (which gay desires aren’t), they’re formulated in life by way of experience, meaning people suffering with same sex attraction weren’t (at least initially) trying to actively foster these strange urges. Instead it’s that they have decided to live our their sexual preference which would be an obvious choice, one which further deepens their issues. So, when believers in the gay agenda do their utmost to defend advancing what they perceive as gay rights under the guise of advancing “being gay”, being as opposed to doing gay, they are being insincere. Insincere because one cannot “be gay”, rather for an individual to insist they are in favor of being gay is either to say they support gay identify (an impossibility), or they are in support of gay desires, which are of course the compelling force behind “doing gay.” Pretending to separate supporting a sexual desire from supporting acts which are the direct result of said desire isn’t anything but insincere.

        Women, as you later explained, are amazing healers! Poverty, obesity, long hair on a guy, women “cure” these things in men because they’re great motivation, they also have a domesticating effect on us, as shown by married men in comparison to the singles. Prominent Christian speaker Frank Turek humorously comments “How many married men do you know who rove neighbourhoods in gangs?” Similarly motherhood also has a tempering effect upon couples, another aspect of heterosexual relationships which cause such grand differences between the homosexual and straight divide. This to make clear isn’t me writing some sort of comparison in how one has superiority over another, rather it’s laying ground work so to describe actual male to male relationships (even how both males are impacted by their gender in relationship with one another). Men and women are profoundly different, so much as to be cause for celebration, moreover, it’s due their domesticating of mankind mankind itself find some wholeness in a love relationship (one lacking rejection, tumult, dangerous promiscuity etc). Might romantic rejection, tumult and promiscuity (each harmful in their own right) be an active feature of male to male relationships? Michael Bronski, in light of the above, stated, even stating approvingly: “Homosexuality offers a vision of sexual pleasure completely divorced from the burden of reproduction: sex for its own sake, a distillation of the pleasure principle.” Now, without womanhood, motherhood, fidelity and due to the simple fact of men being more sexual than women, “being gay” has largely become the above (could such an unrestrained sexual lifestyle do more harm than good?). The Center of Disease Control found in their interviews, interviews conducted with AIDs victims (gay victims), that these men averaged 1,100 sexual partners. People can’t stand back and pretend they are talking about supporting “identity” (whatever that means), or desire (being gay), while pretending they don’t also support the result of those same desires.

        Again Kirk and Madsen in another candid confession explained: “Alas, it turns out that, on this point, public myth is supported by fact. There is more promiscuity among gays (or at least gay men) than among straights . . . Correspondingly, the snail trail of promiscuity – sexually transmitted disease – also occurs among gay men at a rate five to ten times higher than average.” [OSC: Five to ten times higher, and these are statistics gathered by pro gay propaganda agents].

        Yet another gay activist (Larry Kramer) insisted something similar, though not before making their feeling about same sex attracted people known: “I love being gay. I think we’re better than other people. I really do. I think we’re smarter and more talented and more aware and I do, I do, I totally do. And I think we’re more tuned in to what’s happening, tuned into the moment, tuned into our emotions, and other people’s emotions, and we’re better friends. I really do think all of these things.” They’re an in-house critic, one who loves his community of as he sees them gay people, however, it’s in love that they are driven to say what they do next: “In 1990, that is some nine years into what was happening [meaning, in terms of AIDs awareness], 46% of gay men in San Francisco were still f—–g without condoms. 60% of syphilis in America today is in gay men. Excuse me, men who have sex with men. Palm Springs has the highest number of syphilis cases. Palm Springs? I do not want to hear each week how many more of you are becoming hooked on meth. HIV infections are up as much as 40%. You cannot continue to allow yourself and each other to act and live like this! . . .” Kramer realized the issues, Kirk and Madsen too, how long can the rest of the world ignore what’s happening?

        “Abnormal is a wiggle word!” You insist afterwards, and although on the subject of wiggling words I may have to defer to your expertise, 😛 you’re mistaken, abnormal and normal are very common, widely understood words. To be abnormal simply means to be atypical, which attraction to the same sex is whatever way people slice their word sandwich, meaning it’s certainly deviant, rather the idea which yourself and others appear to dislike about abnormal and normal is that one is perceived as pejorative. Your ideology is commanding people to accept homosexuals not just begrudgingly (that’s tolerance, my view), but to embrace the desire and resulting behaviour as either not harmful or perhaps even good (acceptance). Many people and ways of life are not normal, being a camp man, being an elite in the military, even evangelical Christians, they’re not the norm, though the pejorative element of being abnormal would only be attached to actions and desires insofar as the medical profession were concerned based upon damage done to yourself or others based upon being the not normal sort of a thing already listed.

        To properly define paraphilia a second time: “Paraphilia (also known as sexual perversion and sexual deviation) is the experience of intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, or individuals. Typically involving extreme or dangerous activities.”

        To the above data, not necessarily the definition, you protest however, writing furthermore: “There’s some books with stuff that can’t make peer reviewed journal articles because–would you believe it–the liberal elites are conspiring against it! I’ve heard that before. in everything.”

        Well, let’s not write about everything, let’s instead write about history, as it’s an open secret why the medical world declassified homosexuality as an abnormal (abnormal in thought and deed), unhealthy and dangerous group of desires and behaviours. Yet you imply the claim of political factors are somehow unevidenced, likening the fact to other situations rather than educating yourself on specifics, for which I am happily going to do the educating myself. The APA’s position on homosexuality was expressed again in 2009, considering the sort of pro-gay affirming activists they use to conduct “research” their findings aren’t particularly surprising, nevertheless, let’s hear their claim:

        “Same-sex sexual attraction, behaviour, and orientation per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality; in other words, they are not indicators of mental or developmental disorders.”

        Strikingly different from their heavily researched position before the seventies, though, what preceded the change?

        “It is an open secret that this much-heralded decision was at least as much political as it was scientific, with disruptive, gay activist pressure playing a major role. The Rainbow History Project celebrates these pressure tactics, reprinting some of the classic, activist reports from the past. One of those reports, called “Zapping the Shrinks”, boasts about the “disruption by gay activists at the [APA’s] 1970 convention in San Francisco.” Their actions caused quite a commotion! At the 1970 APA gathering, the activists carried out a special “zap” during a high point of the conference. [OSC: Zaps are (at least on paper) described as militant, supposedly non-violent, face-to-face confrontations with “homophobic persons” in positions of authority. So to aggressively ambush people.] The gay intruders burst into the conference hall and pushed past a number of elderly psychiatrists who tried to stop them. And there was no mistaking who the intruders were. [OSC: Rainbow History describes the violent intruders as “dressed in fabulous drag with wildly painted faces, that accentuated the spontaneous, liberating attitude of brothers in drag.” Ready to be liberated?!] Let’s read on.

        “But the gay strategy accomplished its goals, with a number of psychiatrists agreeing to hear out the activists, amidst threats of further disruption if they chose not to do so. And in a famous moment in psychiatric history, Dr. John E. Fryer gave a presentation to the APA in 1972 as ‘Dr. H. Anonymous,’ wearing a bizarre mask and using a microphone that altered the sound of his voice. He began his speech by saying, ‘I am a homosexual. I am a psychiatrist.’ By 1973, leadership within the APA was ready to revise its views on homosexuality, but not without a firestorm of controversy, a firestorm that is still smouldering today. Prof. Ronald Bayer, author of the definitive work on the events surrounding the APA’s 1973 ruling, explained:

        In 1973, after several years of bitter dispute, the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association decided to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Psychiatric Disorders, its official list of mental diseases. Infuriated by that action, dissident psychiatrists charged the leadership of their association with an unseemly capitulation to the threats and pressures of Gay Liberation groups, and forced the board to submit its decision to a referendum of the full APA membership. And so America’s psychiatrists were called to vote upon the question of whether homosexuality ought to be considered a mental disease. The entire process, from the first confrontation organized by gay demonstrators at psychiatric conventions to the referendum demanded by orthodox psychiatrists, seemed to violate the most basic expectations of how questions of science should be resolved. Instead of being engaged in a sober consideration of data, psychiatrists were swept up in a political controversy. The American Psychiatric Association had fallen victim to the disorder of a tumultuous era, when disruptive conflicts threatened to politicize every aspect of American social life. A furious egalitarianism that challenged every instance of authority had compelled psychiatric experts to negotiate the pathological status of homosexuality with homosexuals themselves. The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times (Homosexuality and American Psychiatry).

        OSC: Bayer explained how dissenters fighting this bizarre new decision on the part of their timid leadership were: “haunted by the spectator of a politicized psychiatry that would be defenseless against an endless wave of protests. It now seems that if groups of people march and raise enough hell they can change anything with time. . . Will schizophrenia be next?”

        To me, it’s amazing how a conference on brain death (of all things) can motivate you to defend the slaughter of the unborn, yet wave after wave of oral history by both unbiased professionals and even ex-presidents of the APA can’t move you so to consider their evidence of politicized science! (none so blind as those who will not see).

        “A more sombre warning was founded by Dr. Abram Kardiner, descried by Bayer as ‘a senior figure who had pioneered in the effort to merge the insights of psychoanalysis and anthropology,’ who viewed ‘homosexuality as a symptom of social disintegration.’ Writing to the editor of Psychiatric News, the official publication of the APA, he argued: “Those who reinforce the disintegrative elements in our society will get no thanks from future generations. The family becomes the ultimate victim of homosexuality, a result which any society can tolerate only within certain limits. If the American Psychiatric Association endorses one of the symptoms of social distress as a normal phenomenon it demonstrates to the public its ignorance of social dynamics, and thereby acquires a responsibility for aggravating the already existing chaos.”

        ‘Those protesting the Board’s decision were able to push for a referendum on the question of homosexuality, and so, for “the first time in the history of healthcare. . . a diagnosis or lack of diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather than scientific evidence.” Now, both sides were upset. Board members who ruled that homosexuality was not pathological were mortified that a scientific matter would be put to vote; those opposing the ruling were mortified that the APA Board could have caved in to gay activist pressure in the first place. Understandably, gay activists were alarmed by the call for a vote, and behind the scenes, the National Gay Task Force (NGTF) helped compose and fund a letter to be sent out to all APA members, urging them to back the Board’s decision. But the NGTF was careful not to let the APA members know that it had anything to do with the letter since to do so would have been suicidal. The letter stated:

        “It would be a serious and potential embarrassing step for our profession to vote down a decision which was taken by the bodies of our organization designated to consider such matters.”

        OSC: “our profession”, “bodies of our organization”, And this was a pro-gay activist group writing to APA members as if they were part of their profession! (Talk about conspiracy).

        ‘And so, a critically important letter ostensibly conceived and mailed by its signers (all of whom were key members of the APA’s Board of Trustees) was in fact the brain child of gay activists. Obviously the role of the NGTF needed to remain hidden, even though both the APA offices, as well as the National Gay Task Force, understood the letter as performing a vital role in the effort to turn back the challenge of the referendum to reverse the APA’s decision normalizing homosexuality. . . How seriously should this decision [OSC: Meaning the decision to have homosexuality declassified as abnormal and unhealthy in thought and deed] be taken in light of the extreme gay activist pressure that surrounded it? Ultimately, when the referendum vote was taken, the ruling was upheld 5,854 to 3,810, with 367 abstaining, meaning that despite the external pressure that was applied, despite the turbulent political and cultural climate, despite the gay-sponsored letter that went out, almost 40% of the psychiatrists still differed with the decision. And four years later, according to a survey conducted by the journal Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, ’69 percent of psychiatrists disagreed with the vote and still considered homosexuality a disorder.’ This is the decision that moved homosexuality from the category of abnormal to normal? This is the historic ruling that carried the other mental health organizations in its wake? Talk about a tainted moment in scientific history!’

        Let’s read again your view: “You talk about data, but there’s no data here. There’s some books with stuff that can’t make peer reviewed journal articles because–would you believe it–the liberal elites are conspiring against it! I’ve heard that before. In everything.” The quote takes on an entirely new level of ignorance (technically speaking) after having read the history, as you too must agree, to not would be to choose denial.

        Dr Gerald Schoenwolf in a 2009 article explained “Over the years a number of gays (usually with strong bisexual features) have come to my office for treatment specifically because they want to be straight. They wanted to make love to a woman, have a family and live a straight lifestyle. What was i supposed to say? ‘Sorry, you’re only allowed to be gay!”‘

        Yes! You may once have replied, yet how wrong and harmful such an answer as that has been. By an earlier message you asked what you called the question you would be most interested in receiving an answer to, the question being would I be happy, or would I object in some way, to someone wanting to become gay, as in change their desires to conform more to the same sex attracted person the patient imagined him or herself as. Dr. Abram Kardiner would inform my view with regards to the question, however, for a private person to want such things, I see no reason to prohibit their behaviour, especially so because we are writing about some private inclination of theirs. Privately my desire would be to explain to the person why wanting such an ideal self would be both physically harmful, in addition to being against God’s desire for their life, they are however a free agent. If however you’re asking should the state seize my money in taxes so to pay for programs the voting public don’t want, or if professionals who claim to be healers of pain, that and not mercenaries, should damage minds or sever healthy organs to conform to the patient’s problem of the mind, my reply would be no, much like with abortion, it’s thoroughly inappropriate to do those things, just so inappropriate as it would be for the government to use my money to sever the limbs of people with amputee identity disorder, a person’s strange desire to create their “true self” by removing perfectly healthy limbs. Yet to mutilate genitals is deemed alright (even ethical). Or in sort, the problem is of the mind, not the members (for which transgenderism is too in need of a mental answer).

        You continued later by your now customary threat to take your ball and go home, for which I say that’s your business, you’re totally free to flip your lid, pop your collar or not write to someone, like any adult person. Just don’t insist you’re going to do it only to reply again, that’s just lame. You write doing this or that isn’t worth your time, yet, I would say it’s not worth your time to help further the slaughter of the unborn or of same sex attracted people, yet you find these projects a worthwhile use of your one life.

        You continued, writing how professional people are doing their best to understand same sex attraction: “Not only that, but you misrepresent what it is scientists are doing; they are trying to understand homosexuality.” Yet, as has been shown, from fingerprints to IQ to nail length to what hand people primarily use, scientists aren’t studying these things with the goal of “understanding” same sex attraction, they’re merely trying to justify homosexual desire as innate or an immutable characteristic. The best proof most mainstream scientists don’t care to understand is that their findings, their politicized scientific “findings” that are not soon after being declared nationwide quietly debunked, were talked up by themselves and the media as “proving” homosexuality to be innate and immutable (patently false).

        The formative role development plays in same sex desires should be documented, as it has been by same sex attracted people and organizations like NARTH, yet most institutions won’t touch the subject, it’s simply too hot to handle.

        ‘Jennifer was physically abused by her father in high school, Thom was molested by his neighbor for five years; Cynthia was fondled by her cousin from age seven to age thirteen; Rich was raped by his uncle from elementary school to high school. Each one if them today says that they choose to be part of the LGBT community not because they feel they were born gay but because of their abuse (Andrew Martin’s Love in an Orientation).’

        ‘On what basis, then, are the sexual orientation of these people deemed “normal and positive?” It could be argued that without these hurtful experiences, these particular individuals would not have developed same sex attraction [OSC: As they themselves often believe]. Isn’t there something aberrant (and therefore abnormal) about a woman not being able to have intimate relations with a man, or a man not being able to have intimate relations with a women, rooted in traumatic childhood sexual abuse? Isn’t there something aberrant (and therefore abnormal) about two people being unable to function according to their biological design? How is this “normal and positive”? [OSC: So much for wiggle words. In fact, by way of another recent study only 26% of bi-sexual men and women surveyed hadn’t experienced child abuse, meaning 74% of those surveyed tragically had.]

        Though the data gets more harrowing for people who truly care for the same sex attracted: ‘On August 28, 2009, the results of a study from the Centers of Disease Control were released. As reported in the gay Southern Voice (a website replete with ads featuring same-sex couples in loving embrace): “Gay and bisexual men account for half of the new HIV infections in the U.S and have AIDS at a rate more than 50 times greater than other groups, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data presented at the National HIV Prevention Conference this week in Atlanta. . . While the CDC data has continually reported gay and bisexual men and other MSM of all races as the groups with the highest number of new HIV cases each year, AIDS activists said this was the first time the CDC clearly stated with a concrete rate how the disease is impacting gay and bisexual men. Gay and bisexual men are also the only risk group in which new infections are increasing.”‘ [OSC: Homosexual desires are the impetus, the driving impulse behind the destructive behavior. Protected or unprotected the act of gay sex is always harmful (like smoking). More sad is that as societal acceptance of the gay agenda increases, so too do the rates of infection.]

        These sad statistics are not the fault of “homophobia”, they’re the direct result of an unfaithful, often unrestrained community of sexually active men, in addition to an abnormal and dangerous cocktail of desires and the result of said desires within a community of like minded people. A report issued by the US Food and Drug Administration explained: ‘Men who have sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeated blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than repeated blood donors.”

        Remember how the medical world define paraphilia again: “Paraphilia (also known as sexual perversion and sexual deviation) is the experience of intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, or individuals. Typically involving extreme or dangerous activities.”

        Are the above figures, figures which show the widespread unfaithfulness, increased risk of mental and physical issues typical of human behaviour? By no means. Are the above woes the result of extreme or dangerous sexual behaviours, undoubtedly yes. Hence my definition. Let’s read more, this time by way of the International Journal of STD and AIDs:

        “HIV-positive men who have sex with men are up to 90 times more likely than the general population to develop anal cancer. Detection of precancerous changes by anal cytology is a relatively new procedure and one that has yet to enter standard practices.”

        Similarly on March 10, 2010, the American government released a report stating: ‘A data analysis released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention underscores the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men in the United States. The data, presented at CDC’s 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women. . . The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says.”

        ‘While the heavy toll of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men has been long recognized, this analyse shows just how stark the health disparities are between this and other populations,’ Remarked Kevin Fenton, director of the CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention.

        Dr. Michael Brown, because I know how much you enjoy your bullet points, sums up:

        1. Despite knowing the AIDS risk, homosexuals repeatedly and pathologically continue to indulge in unsafe sex practices.

        2. Homosexuals represent the highest number of STD cases.

        3. Many homosexuals sex practices are medically dangerous, with or without protection.

        4. More than one-third of homosexuals are substance abusers.

        5. Forty percent of homosexual adolescents report suicidal histories.

        6. Homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to have mental health concerns, such as eating disorders, personality disorders, paranoia, depression and anxiety.

        7. Homosexual relationships are more violent than heterosexual relationships.

        ‘The report also emphasized that “Societal bias and discrimination do not, in and of themselves, contribute to the majority of increased health risks for homosexuals.” How, then, can same-sex attractions and behaviours be deemed “Positive?”? [OSC: As the APA claim today]. Dr. Louis Berman observed that, “It’s no wonder that [male] homosexuals are more likely to become alcoholics, drug abusers, and are even more likely to become suicidal. The evidence very strongly suggests that straight is better than gay–and that is why my book [The Puzzle] pleads for more research on the psychological determinants of sexual orientation, and on the improvement of reorientation therapy.”

        You insist to only caring about harm caused by same sex desires/attraction, as if to say you haven’t read enough harm already, well, there’s certainly scarce room for doubt insofar as the data is concerned. You write after about the suppression of liberties, which certainly is interesting, as your messages, either explicitly or implicitly, involve the defence of the slaughter of the unborn (a curtailing of the right to life), denying people their right to reorientation (denying their right to patient determination), in addition to the destruction of freedom of thought insofar as religion is concerned (although your venn diagrams beg to differ! 🙂 ). You appear also to misunderstand that to take up one position (pro gay) necessarily involves the rejection of other positions (e.g the existed of ex-gays, religious convictions, proper science). You fear people reading your material as quasi-Nazi or something equally repugnant in the ideas you share, whereas I have never feared any such thing in my thought life, perhaps your paranoia isn’t unfounded.

        Homosexual activist Kevin Jennings (already discussed above) spoke the things “pro-gay” people dare not say: ‘Ex-gay messages have no place in our nation’s schools. A line has been drawn. There is no “other side” when you’re talking about lesbian, gay and bisexual students.’

        Therefore, as is happening across the UK and America, people are denied their say (be they “gay people” or straight), they’re being told to change, to be conformed. Yet, to say one is in favor of “gay rights” would be without doubt the unmitigated failure to live up to either my Christian duties/beliefs, your rather hazy talk of liberty and well-being, and even what medical professionals claim to stand for, healing. History remains witness, and as it stands the decision to ultimately open the floodgates, to pretend a dangerous dysfunction (which people in the medical world praise themselves for generally alleviating) appropriate, wasn’t done on account of the evidence (the evidence was already in), rather professional people merely wanted to take the easy way out, thus avoiding further disruption and pain in their own lives, not the lives of their patients. Love compelled me to believe an escape for people possible, selfishness drove the shirks.

        Like

  4. I read about a third of your last comment before I decide to bow out of the conversation. I’m struggling with understanding how what you’re saying is relevant. At one point you said “we’re talking about the disciple” and I thought ‘Why? And since when? How did this happen?’ It became apparent to me I don’t even know what questions you are attempting to answer.

    I’m simply saying that if same-sex attracted people want to have romantic relationships with each other, that’s fine. You’re talking about promiscuity and drug abuse. Why? Well, you did at one point suggest the promiscuity and drug use suggested something missing in them, spiritually, that they are trying to fill. But as there’s no more evidence that “something” was eroded away by bullying than it being a heterosexual relationship, I don’t really care.

    I then preceded to read about as far as the bit where you state you believe the words ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ to be robustly defined enough words to not give wiggle room. I contemplated making an argument showing that I could defend the position that sex in the missionary position was abnormal. But, I don’t really doubt you’re fully aware the word ‘abnormal’ is meaningless without a well defined ‘normal’. I was then going to go on to ask whether ‘normal’ was a surrogate word for anything more meaningful, like ‘moral’ or ‘harmless’ (with the consequent implications for the word ‘abnormal’).

    I then skip read descriptions of the STD and drug use rates among homosexuals, and I just got tired of the conversation. It’s not relevant

    I’ve decided to be polite enough to tell you I’m bowing out.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s