« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Socio-politico-religo teams who live in glass houses...

by Jeremy Hooper

How do the anti-gay folks at Focus on the Family view the gay community's reaction to Michael Glatze's recent "ex-gay" revelation? Well, consider this passage from their CitizenLink news site:

Gay activists responded to the news with criticism and vitriol. Caleb H. Price, a social research analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said he wasn't surprised.

"A striking feature of the gay activism is their unwillingness to consider the fact that they might be wrong," he said.

To which we respond:

Vitriol? Yea? You really want to accuse US of that, FOF? Well, how's about we consider some of Michael Glatze's words over the past few days, shall we? Here's just a sample:

"To believe that you are Gay is to be stupid."

A gay person is not "real," but rather "a strange creature"

"Any intelligent 'homosexual' knows there's no fixed Gay Identity

There are "angry voices" in the gay person' mind, which were "planted there by Satan"

If you are a gay person, you are "a demon, trapped in a fabrication not your own, lusting and hating and destroying your soul to hell"

"Homosexuality, delivered to young minds, is by its very nature pornographic"

Homosexuality "destroys impressionable minds and confuses their developing sexuality"

Gay rights is "a movement of sin and corruption"

"We cannot see the truth when we're blinded by homosexuality."

"...homosexual sex – and all other lust-based sex – is never satisfactory: It's a neurotic process rather than a natural, normal one."

Gays are incapable of true love

And yet WE'RE the ones who possess an "unwillingness to consider the fact that [we] might be wrong? We, the ones who are only asking to be left alone and allowed to live our truths? Those of us who exist en masse in every culture and religious faith? We who need not conferences or therapy or prayer to realize our true desires? Those of us who are routinely told by the religious right that we should cull our data about ourselves from only one-sided interpretations of a handful of Biblical passages, not our own life experiences, research, or common sense -- WE'RE THE ONES WHO ARE MYOPIC IN OUR WORLD VIEWS?!?!?! Interesting.

Well, FOF, it's great that in a "
You're an immoral, Satan-possessed, sinning, stupid, strange, Hell-bound fabrication" vs. "No I'm not" debate, it is the latter team that you guys see as the non-debatably vitriolic one. However, we are quite confident that if you kids stay on this train, it's only a matter of time before the general public truly starts to see the truth that we've always know lies behind your organization's uber-righteous facade. After all, it would seem to us that it takes much more than invoking the name of Jesus to stake a claim to the moral high ground.

But then again, what do we know? The angry, gay-affirming voice of Satan that lives us our head has rendered us stupid.

Gay Spokesman Leaves Homosexuality [CitizenLink]

**To see the "vitriolic" way our group of gays have responded to Mr. Glatze, please see this comments section. By and large, we think what you'll find is a mix of sadness that Mr. Glatze has bought into the "ex-gay" idea, a reasoned discussion of the flaws in his logic, and a few suggestions that maybe the whole thing is a hoax.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

Dear Good,

Jesus preached about things going on in his day, no?
Homosexuality was not unheard of in Rome at the time, no?

Did Jesus preach on homosexuality, and if not, why not?
I'm asking you because I think you are fair and smart,
and if you don't know the answer, I'm sure you can find out.


Posted by: Ken Tierney | Jul 9, 2007 1:38:01 PM

I would actually like to step in and offer a relatively brief reply to your comment Ken, if you have no objections. No objections? Great!

Yes, the Lord Jesus did preach and teach on "things going on in his day." Yes, homosexuality was heard of and practiced in Rome at the time (although Jesus was a Jew who lived in the Land of Israel which was under Roman occupation, not in Rome itself – but we won't split hairs here).

Now, as to your third question, Jesus did in fact address the issue of homosexuality. Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah and He is God, the Creator of all. The Bible teaches quite clearly that there is one eternal being of God - indivisible and infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons - the Father, the Son (who became a Man - Jesus of Nazareth), and the Spirit. This is NOT to say that the Father IS the Son, or that the Son IS the Spirit, or that the Spirit IS the Father. Sadly, it's far too common for those who reject the Bible's teaching on the nature of God – known as the Trinity or Tri-unity – to completely misunderstand the doctrine and claim its adherent teach that Jesus is the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity does not teach this in any way!

OK, now then, the Bible claims to be (and I'll assume Ken from your words that you agree with this) and can be demonstrated to be the written Word of God. Therefore, every word in the Bible is really the Word of the Creator – the Word of Jesus the Christ, God the Son. So the so-called "Old Testamentm" or Tanakh, is God-breathed – and in fact Jesus stated that it "cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

With that in mind, I would encourage you Ken to read and re-read Leviticus chapters 18 and 20. In chapter 18 God specifically identifies as sin homosexuality, adultery, incest, child sacrifice, and bestiality. These were the practices of the Canaanites who were being driven out of the land and punished for doing these very things (among other reasons). The rest of the Tanakh likewise applies these same moral standards and absolutes to the nations that surrounded the Land of Israel, calling their practices an abomination. And in light of the New Testament's reaffirmation of these prohibitions, I see no logical or contextual reason whatsoever to classify the condemnation of homosexuality in God's Word as being merely "Jewish law" that has no bearing and/or significance to contemporary followers of the LORD Jesus Christ. Furthermore, if one still holds the moral claims of Leviticus chapter 18 and Leviticus chapter 20 are completely irrelevant to the moral teachings overall of the Bible, then one would have to – if they are consistent – stop all condemnations of adultery, incest, child sacrifice, and bestiality as well, because they're also condemned in these portions of Holy Scripture.

And the Apostle Paul clearly classifies homosexuality as a sin in the New Testament. Interestingly, the Apostle utilized two precise terms in his teaching on the sinfulness of homosexuality used in the Greek Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament centuries before Jesus was born). Paul used the Greek word "arsinos," meaning male, and "koitos," a term whereby we get the word "coitus," or sexual intercourse. Paul is referring to men "laying" with men as a man lays with a woman. He's talking about homosexuality. Taking into consideration the Old Testament background of Leviticus 20:13, and the use of those terms in that context and the use by the Apostle Paul, there should be no doubt concerning the meaning of the text.

Now, I anticipate Ken that you may still insist that Jesus Himself, when He walked the earth, never explicitly classified homosexuality as a sin (you would still of course have to answer the Trinitarian argument above). I would simply answer by once again pointing out that Jesus also never explicitly classified bestiality and incest as sins either. Would you say that's because Jesus didn't think bestiality and incest were sins(contrary to the Torah, which He claimed on many occasions was the Word of God), or would you say that's because Jesus didn't need to explicitly classify homosexuality and bestiality and incest as sins because it was such an obvious given that they were sins? Perhaps another reason?

Look forward to hearing from you!

Posted by: AJ | Jul 9, 2007 4:34:25 PM

Hello to another Ken.

I do not find the Bible as the Written Word of God but Inspired Word of God. Written by the hands of men as an account of Jesus's ministry and written account of the Apostles to the early Christian church. Only Jesus can claim the title of "Literal Word of God".

Jesus is the Word(John 1 v.1). The Bible is only a written account of his ministry. Do not hold the Bible to be the literal Word of God because you become dangerously close to committing bibliolatry. I believe the Bible is true but we simply cannot find all the answers in the Bible nor can we know "all of God" by looking among the Scriptures. Think of the Bible as a small pebble in a vast roaring sea. Think of God as that sea. Do you understand what I am talking about? The Bible gives only a small account of who God is. He is greater than what the Bible describes. In Isaiah, Chapter 55 v.8-9. God says his thoughts and ways are far above ours. So this tells me that we cannot know everything about God because to claim so we would have to be God himself. That would be blasphemy. There will always be an element of mystery to God. That is God. But be careful. There are those Christians that deem it necessary to be arrogantly right when it comes to Scripture and judge others only by their sins because they claim to know all of God's will. They don't. Remember only God is the judge.

First and foremost the Holy Spirit is the guider of all men. While the Bible is important resource to a Christians life, it MUST NOT superceed the Holy Spirit. That is how God talks to his people. Through the Holy Spirit. Please listen to the Holy Spirit. Jesus said the Father would send a helper (Holy Spirit) to spread the Good News. (Acts 1 and 2)

The only type of homosexuality that was known in Paul's time was sexual orgies that were involved in pagan rituals of the time. The condemnation on the act of anal intercourse in Leviticus Ch 18 and 20 were due to the pagan rituals practiced by Canaanites. Most gay people I know (including myself) do not engage in anal intercourse but a great many of heterosexuals I know do. Romans 1 referred to those that didn't acknowledge God because they worshiped created Gods and practiced immorality as a result of their idolatry. If you read Romans 1 and 2 without verses and chapter breaks you will find that Paul was leading up to telling his readers that they had no right to judge others because by their very condemnation of others they condemn themselves. So Paul was warning his readers that we are not to judge others. Only God does.

As for homosexuality being a sin I do not believe it is. No matter how much I prayed I am still gay. This is based by my own experience with God. I was in God's presence at 15 and he spoke to me directly. Seriously. This is no joke. This was before I became a professing Christian at 18. By the work of the Holy Spirit in my own life, and my strong desire to love others, is all the proof I need that God works in my life.


For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. ~ Romans 8:38-39

Posted by: Ken R | Jul 10, 2007 12:20:49 AM

Oh, I forgot to add this in my last post.

When Jesus died on the Cross he not only took the sins of mankind and the punishment for those sins onto himself, he also fulfilled the Old Testament Law. We are no longer bound by the Old Testament Law. However, we are now bound by the Law of Love given by Jesus:

Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:34-40)

Posted by: Ken R | Jul 10, 2007 1:22:36 AM

Good afternoon to the two Ken's and all who still check this post!

The second Ken, "Ken R.," made many claims that simply do not align with God's revealed Word. For brevity's sake, I'll simply record what he wrote in quotes and offer a brief rebuttel:

"I do not find the Bible as the Written Word of God but Inspired Word of God."

"Inspired" in it's New Testament usage is equivalent to saying "God-breathed." Both are translating the same Greek word! That's important. One of the fundamental questions that must to be asked by every person (especially a self-professing Christian) is "Has God spoken clearly in the Scriptures or not?" His Word claims He has:

"All Scripture is God-breathed [inspired; same Greek word, "theopneustos"] and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

This verse and the truths it pronounces is essentially what separates orthodox, consistent, biblical-believing Christianity from everything else. If and when a person takes a separate fork in the road other than the teachings of the Apostles as found here in 2 Timothy, they will very likely never cross paths again. The fact is God has spoken through His Word, a Word He has exalted even above His own Name! God - the Creator of all - has spoken to His creation with clarity. Ken R. may not like what God says at some points, but that's a different issue.

"Written by the hands of men as an account of Jesus' ministry and written account of the Apostles to the early Christian church."

This is true of course, but so what? Christians hold that God superintended the Scriptures, not that He dictated all of the writings (although there are certain portions that God did dictate; e.g., the Ten Commandments). Whether through superintention or dictation, the end product turned out exactly the way He wanted it. So yes, men wrote the Bible. When we write a letter, do we write the letter, or does the pen write the letter? Obviously we do; the pen is merely the instrument we use. Likewise, God used men as instruments to write His "letter" to humanity.

"Do not hold the Bible to be the literal Word of God because you become dangerously close to committing bibliolatry."

This depends what you mean by "literal" and what you mean by "bibliolatry." If by literal you mean interpretation in light a word or passages normal usage and historical and grammatical context, then yes I interpret the Bible just as I do other texts. As scholar David L. Cooper once put it, "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise." If we take the Bible seriously and follow this rule we avoid the many snares that emerge when we try to read back into the text something that is not there, namely our own presuppositions (e.g., Ken R. reading back into the text his own presuppositions and experiences and seeking justification for them). In doing that we will fail to see what is actually expressed by God in the Scriptures.

"I believe the Bible is true but we simply cannot find all the answers in the Bible nor can we know 'all of God' by looking among the Scriptures."

Nor does the Bible ever claim to be exhaustive in EVERY detail concerning EVERY area of life. The Bible never claims to contain ALL knowledge. For example, John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible doesn't have to be exhaustive to function as the SOLE rule of faith for the Church. We don't need to know the color of Peter's eyes or the menu of what Paul ate in prison for the Bible to function as the SOLE rule of faith for the Church. And that is what the doctrine of "sola scriptura" teaches. It holds that the Bible is the Christians sole infallible rule of faith. Sola scriptura does not say that there aren't other fallible rules of faith or even traditions that a Christian can consult (and even embrace). The only infallible rule of faith for the Church, though, is the Bible. All other rules, traditions, creeds, etc., are by their very nature inferior to the Bible. And, very important to remember, they are subject to correction by the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority and it is the final authority. Why? Because it is "theopneustos." It is "God-breathed." Therefore, the Bible embodies the very speaking of our Creator. All that a person must know and believe to be a Christian is found in Bible and in no other source. That which isn't found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

Ken R. has a very unbiblical and unorthodox view of the Holy Spirit and His relation to the Scriptures and God's people. We are called as Christians to test the spirits in order to be sure that what they saying is true and from God. Test them against what? The Holy Scriptures - the ultimate and final authority for the Christian. If a spirit says murder is OK, that doesn't align with God's Word so it can't be from Him. If a spirit says adultery is OK, that doesn't align with God's Word and so it can't be from Him. And if a spirit says homosexuality is not a sin, that doesn't align with that with is God-breathed and therefore must be rejected.

Concerning Ken R.'s idea that the Bible in general and the Apostle Paul in particular didn't classify homosexuality as a sin doesn't even survive the laugh test, much less the test of sound exegesis. It's simple presuppositional eisegesis. Ken R. presupposes that the Bible says homosexuality is OK, and therefore any verse that clearly teaches otherwise is re-interpreted through his pre-commitment. I'll simply point out that Ken R. never responds to my brief arguments in any meaningful way. Instead, he makes absurd and easily disprovable claims, such as the Apostle Paul only knew about homosexual orgies. We could call Ken R.'s interpretive method Homosexual Presuppositional Eisegesis (HPE).

"As for homosexuality being a sin I do not believe it is...This is based by my own experience with God."

Of course he doesn't think homosexuality is a sin. His experience and his "feelings" are the final authority, not the Scriptures. In fact, Ken R. could never REALLY claim the Scriptures have any authority over him. Only when the Bible agrees with his preconceived notions does the Bible even matter.

Concerning the last point, I would agree to some extent that Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law. But to simply dismiss the Mosaic Law and its moral teachings is not at all Biblical. But this of course doesn't help Ken R. because homosexuality is still classified as sin under the Law of Christ. For Ken R., the issue is one of authority. What is his final, ultimate authority? If it's not that which is God-breathed, that is the root of his troubles and confusions and unbiblical beliefs and assertions

Have a great day!

Posted by: AJ | Jul 10, 2007 1:53:03 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails