9 years ago: Big (anti)Gay Al

July 9, 2004, on this blog: Big (anti)Gay Al

Mohler is so obsessed with this notion of a grand scheme and a gay agenda that he fails to appreciate why a greater number of “mainstream” heterosexual folks seem to have become more accepting of their homosexual neighbors: They’ve gotten to know some of those neighbors (sons/daughters/aunts/uncles/coworkers/friends) as people.

That’s probably the strangest thing about guys like Mohler. Despite his fascination with homosexuals, he seems to think he doesn’t know any.

  • Daniel

    Although that is a non sequitur. It doesn’t follow that because one thing is transient the only valid thing is something eternal. Also, the Bible wasn’t written at the beginning of time. There were several billion years before this “eternal” source of ethics came into being, several million years in which people did not know this apparently unchanging code of conduct, and society seemed to do pretty well before it.

  • Daniel

    Why are we not able to disagree? Again, God made us, he gave us the power to question so why is it wrong to disagree with God?

  • Daniel

    That’s still not love. Read his earlier post. Love apparently only exists if it never, ever changes. Ever. At all. Change is for liberals and underwear. I really want to cry for Frank, but I am atheist and have no soul so I can’t. Love, for Frank, cannot be given by human beings. All we are is duplicitous fuck machines. And those need opposing genitals.

  • Daniel

    I think Hypothetical Hindu was the lamest Hannah-Barbera rehashes of Scooby Doo. I mean they didn’t even have crimes to solve, just hypotheses to work out. And the same ones came up every week- they died on the first outing but then somehow got reincarnated into a later episode.

  • Daniel

    Why does he need to voice an open approval of something to make it OK? God doesn’t punish Lot’s daughters for getting him drunk and raping him- does that mean daughter-on-dad incestuous date rape is OK? Or is it only ok if the aim is to get pregnant? Or is this another one of those things that I’m misinterpreting?

  • Daniel

    This is what’s pissing me off so much about his posts. I love to debate this stuff- I’ve literally had Christians of various denominations and sects popping over to my house for months to discuss this with them- but in my world “debate” includes using supporting evidence, which he doesn’t.

  • Frank

    Wise up.

  • Frank

    So homosexuals live like animals? Is that your point? Really?

    Animals also eat their young and throw their feces.

    What a silly argument.

  • Daniel

    That’s not an answer. I asked you a legitimate question- I have seen no evidence to conclude that there is a God. Therefore arguments about morality “from God” have no meaning for me. I do not believe in Hell, I do not believe in Heaven. So please, given as this is apparently the will of an almighty, infallible being explain to me the reasons He has provided for people like me to accept such ridiculous moral diktats when I don’t accept the authority of the source. In other words give me a rational reason why homosexuality is wrong. “Wise up” is not an answer. It’s barely the title of an eighties sitcom.

  • Frank

    They are exactly doing the same thing with homosexuality trying to say its not sinful. Good for you!

  • Frank

    Eh. You have the choice to reject the truth of God.

  • Frank

    Give an atheist a voice and they will discredit themselves. How sad yet predictable..

  • Frank

    Oh dear the deception runs deep. There is nothing sexual between them. Its been discredit ad nauaseum. Try and keep up.

  • Daniel

    Quite clearly that’s not J_Enigma’s point. You know that full well, and are once again changing the subject to hide your inability to answer a legitimate point. You respire, you eat, you shit, you sleep and eventually you will die. Those are traits you share with animals. So I suppose then that I am saying you live like an animal. You type slightly better, I’ll give you that.

  • Daniel

    You still haven’t answered my question. Why is homosexuality a sin?

  • Frank

    But you are by denying the Word of God.

  • Daniel

    Excellent way to deliberately misread a statement. Let me be more clear: if people in the past have misconstrued the bible’s instructions about slavery as an endorsement for slavery, how do you know that you are not misinterpreting the Bible’s equally explicit view on homosexuality? I know you know that’s what I meant the first time, and are just avoiding the question again.

  • Frank

    Paul knew exactly what he was talking about. Gay marriage existed in Rome and China and other places at the time.

    Try again.

  • Frank

    Science say God makes people gay? Yeah ok.

  • Daniel

    Paul hadn’t been to China. And it’s not really accepted that the concept of “gay” existed much before the twentieth century. Do keep up.

  • Frank

    Its reality.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.

    –2 Samuel 1:26b. Speaker is David (who had lots of wives, so we know he liked the love of women), speaking about Jonathan.

  • Frank

    I guess you must of written your own bible?

  • dpolicar

    “It’s”.

  • Daniel

    David was referring to Jonathan’s skill at ironing. Try and keep up.

  • Frank

    Everyone has a choice to either accept or reject the truth, to follow God or create their own gods.

  • EllieMurasaki

    *dies*

  • Frank

    Yes I understand how being unable to refute content you have to point out a missing apostrophe. Good job!

  • Daniel

    It really isn’t Frank. Not really. It’s a way of validating a profound misanthropy and fear of people.

  • Frank

    Look up the ancient history of gay marriage. Learn something.

  • Frank

    Oh dear. Only someone who is an expert at eisegesis would see something sexual in that relationship. How sad for scholarship.

  • EllieMurasaki

    *googles* Ooo, my word of the day! I’ll use it in a completely true sentence: Frank, you are engaging in eisegesis.

  • Frank

    No one misconstrued (well maybe some fools did) that the bible supports slavery. They chose to believe that as it fit in with how they want to live their life. Exactly whats happening right now with sexuality and marriage.

  • Frank

    It’s against Gods created order.

  • Daniel

    But you said that the Bible’s explicit statements about how to look after your slaves was not the bible approving of slave holding. So if that’s the case, how do you know that the bible’s explicit condemnation of buggery is actually a condemnation of homosexuality in general and not just you choosing to believe it as it fits in with how you want to live your life?

  • Daniel

    No really, you look up sociology papers about exactly this subject- the idea of “gay” didn’t exist until the twentieth century. It was quite common prior to this for men to have relationships with both sexes, the idea of exclusively directed sexuality dates from Krafft-Ebing onwards. Common did not equate to accepted, but that changed according to time and place. Incidentally, James VI whose bible everyone seems so keen on was pretty much a massive screaming bender.

  • Daniel

    How do you know? And isn’t it a contradiction for something to exist that contradicts the will of an all powerful and all knowing being?

  • Daniel

    Before you studied “the Word of God” did you already think it was the Word of God? Or did you sit down with (I assume) the Bible, read it and decide “this must be true, this must be the word of God!” without having been Christian before hand? And how many other divinely inspired or dictated books did you read? What made you pick Christianity over all the myriad other religions out there?

  • dpolicar

    Refutation is not my purpose.

    Your view of reality is consistently mistaken. I’ve said that already; I see no value in repeating it on this thread.

    Your use of the third-person neutral possessive is also consistently mistaken.

    In both cases, I can and do point out your mistakes. That’s really all I can do.

    You decide whether to treat that as an opportunity for rhetorical victory or for self-improvement. Thus far, you’ve been pretty consistently choosing the former.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Is that why he invented a word from scratch to describe it?

  • Jess Goodwin

    Look, man, I know some things. I know what direction the summer sun is shining from, even with my eyes closed. I know heat and cold, light and dark, up and down. I don’t need those things defined for me.

    I know what love is, with every cell of my body and every electrical impulse of my brain and every stirring of my indescribable and unprovable soul. I know that I love and am loved. I know it the way I know the sun’s warmth. You don’t get to tell me I’m wrong.

    Love is more than an emotion, but emotion is a part of it.

    Love is more than romance, but romance can be a part of it.

    Love is more than passion, or friendship, or loyalty. Trying to describe it is like trying to describe the sun itself. It’s a nuclear reaction and a source of illumination and the origin of life and a cause of death and a divinity and a wheel and a smiling face…

    We can’t list all the things it is, but we can point to it when we see it.

  • dpolicar

    Word.

    For my own part, I find my life works best when I treat love as a vague perception of something powerful and valuable that I don’t fully conceive or understand, but which can serve as a beacon to orient myself around in a turbulent and disorienting environment.

    Which is not to say I always do treat love that way.

  • hf

    Those would be the fools who popularized your way of interpreting the Bible. Your literalist approach came in handy for defending slaveholders, who of course claimed to be treating their slaves “well”.

    Later, descendants of the same people decided to pretend that never happened and could never have happened.

  • Jess Goodwin

    So, try to follow us here:

    If the Bible was *always* anti-slavery, but some people’s interpretation of it was wrong for nineteen hundred years, *why* shouldn’t some people’s interpretation of its treatment of sexuality have been wrong as well?

    And *please* don’t dodge and tell us to just study more and we’ll all come to the same opinions as you. That smacks of a man who attends a Bible study group where the pastor tells him what conclusions he’s allowed to draw.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    So, do you recommend that gay people enter into loveless marriages, or would you rather they live unfulfulled lives of loneliness deprived of any chance at romantic relationships?

    When God chose to make these people unable to experinece the only kind of sexual attractions He sanctions, was it out of spite, or to be an object lesson to others? Is there some higher purpose God is working on by creating some people born doomed to unhappiness?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    You certainly reject Matthew 22:38

  • Daniel

    Where does the bible condemn slavery? And can you explain (not just sneer at me for asking) why there are so many passages in the bible that tell you how to treat your slaves and who you have the right to hold as slaves if the bible is anti-slavery?

  • Daniel

    Why is it sad to see something sexual in that relationship? Again, you seem to ignore the fact that most people don’t actually have a problem with men doing it.

  • Daniel

    They’ve also regarded art and music as sinful at various points, and democracy, and universal suffrage. Oh, and mince pies.

  • Daniel

    So once again you raise the problem of an omnipotent omniscient God being surprised by what his creations do. Assuming people do choose to be gay- why would this be wrong? God never actually offers any reasons for this, does he?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X