What Does This Writer Represent?

comments form first comment

What would you think of a writer spent an entire article slamming another writer he’s never met, speculating on that other writer’s psychological motivations based on stereotypes, guesses, and a whole host of information he does not have?

What if that writer said of the other writer and his work:

  • stupid question
  • smuggles in facts not in evidence
  • written to reassure true believers … that their position is unassailable
  • on a site not exactly for intellectuals
  • I suggest he’s lying
  • He is guilty of … bias confirmation [sic]
  • Any answer dismissed so he can pretend he’s never had an answer
  • Goes into debate with his mind closed to all opposing answers
  • Sole judge … so he can never be proven wrong
  • He doesn’t want an answer

What if the writer in question accomplished those ten slams in just five paragraphs?

What if that writer admitted he was guessing on a good portion of it?

Would that writer be considered a good representative of tolerance? How about non-judgmentalism? How about trying to reduce hate?

See the article and the response written by the person he was judging. See whether you think these speculations landed anywhere near the truth.

Now ask yourself, who is it in this controversy that accuses the other side of being haters, and how does that square with what you read here?

top of page comments form

31 Responses to “ What Does This Writer Represent? ”

  1. Try as I might I have not found any website, Christian or otherwise, that claim Christians do positive things for gays and lesbians. Sure I find plenty of Christian sites that claim that gays are fags, gays will burn in hell, gays will cause the fall of civilization, etc, etc, etc.

    What I don’t find Christian websites who show love for gays. I don’t find Christian websites who fight for gay rights. I don’t find Christian websites that want gays – as they are – as members of their congregations. I don’t find Christian websites favoring gay marriage and gay family units. I don’t find Christians websites that want to end discrimination against gays in housing and jobs. In short, I have a hard time finding websites that reach out to gays and want them to be included.

    At least Ray Comfort is willing to hire people who are LGBT-friendly. Have to give him credit for that.

    Perhaps you can provide some links to gay-friendly Christian websites.

  2. Patrick, if you’re looking for a site that does all that, you can find it in the highly liberal denominations. If you’re able to locate sites that claim gays are fags and will burn in hell, then you have demonstrated the ability to find whatever belief or prejudice you want to go looking for. You don’t need our help nearly as much as you seem to indicate here.

    If, anyway, you’re looking for a place where gays are treated as humans, try part 2 here. See also Spiritual Friendship.

    The reason we don’t support gay marriage is because we think it’s wrong and harmful. Later today I’ll have an article up about how the recent Supreme Court decision is likely to harm gays, too.

  3. Later today I’ll have an article up about how the recent Supreme Court decision is likely to harm gays, too.

    I look forward to reading that post. It will especially be interesting to see what studies you will cite to support your conclusions.

  4. Patrick, if you’re looking for a site that does all that, you can find it in the highly liberal denominations.

    It is both interesting and sad that you say that. It would imply that I am not going to find any gay-friendly or gay-loving Christian websites in the more conservative denominations. In other words, you seem to be admitting that the more conservative Christian denominations have the more anti-gay orientation than their liberal brethren have.

    If you’re able to locate sites that claim gays are fags and will burn in hell, then you have demonstrated the ability to find whatever belief or prejudice you want to go looking for.

    Or it means that those are the easier websites to find than the more gay-friendly ones meaning that they are more numerous than the gay-loving ones you profess exist. Just because they are easier and more numerous doesn’t mean that I have a bias one way or another. It means that sampling what is out there there is a tendency amongst Christians to have anit-gay feelings than loving ones towards gays.

    If I have a bag of 100 marbles of 2 colors and I keep pulling out black ones rather than white ones does not mean I am more disposed to the black ones. It just means that there are more black marbles in the bag than white ones.

  5. You are not going to find any conservative websites that “love” gays in the manner you describe. Truth is love, too; and to offer truth to gays, while being anti-gay-agenda, is not anti-gay, for I would suggest to you that being pro-gay-agenda is being anti-gay in the most important sense, which has to do with eternal destiny, not current enjoyment.

    Your argument here is tendentious, in other words. You sneak a premise into your question, a premise that is the one in dispute. If you do not agree with what I wrote in my first paragraph in this comment, you could at least have the courtesy and practical wisdom not to bring your invidious assumptions in as if they were agreed truth.

  6. Your argument here is tendentious, in other words. You sneak a premise into your question, a premise that is the one in dispute.

    And you don’t?

  7. I do not.

    Or, if I do, I admit it and correct it. I don’t try to deflect it with tu quoques.

    It’s as plain as day what you’re doing, Patrick. Don’t try to evade it. Don’t evade being honest with yourself that way.

  8. It’s as plain as day what you’re doing, Patrick. Don’t try to evade it. Don’t evade being honest with yourself that way.

    I honestly have no idea what you are talking about or referring to. You made the claim that Christians love gays, that you love gays, and all I am trying to do is seek evidence of this. I have done nothing more than ask questions in order to learn.

  9. I should point out that while Christians have an anti-gay agenda (as you admitted) gays do not have a similar anti-Christian agenda. They have more of a just-let-us-live-our-lives agenda. While your concern for their eternal life is admirable if being gay is genetic/biological then they are not sinning and are thus not in danger of losing their sould due to being gay.

    If we atheists as well as gays end up buringing in hell for our choices (assuming being gay is a choice) what do you care. We lived our lives according to our conscience and are prepared for the consequences. Besides, no one has been able to offer any proof that any form of hell (Muslim, liberal Christian or conservative Christian) even exists. I, personally, am so convinced due to the absence of evidence of hell that I actively try to persuade family and friends, people I love dearly, to be more atheistic.

    Our lives, our consequences – not yours.

  10. You made the claim that Christians love gays, that you love gays, and all I am trying to do is seek evidence of this.

    You’re looking for evidence that Christians love gays in terms that are founded in a non-Christian approach to reality.

    I have done nothing more than ask questions in order to learn.

    Your questions contain a whole load of preaching in them, Patrick. Don’t play innocent on us.

    If we atheists as well as gays end up buringing in hell for our choices (assuming being gay is a choice) what do you care.

    I care, Patrick, even though its your lives and your consequences. I care, even if what’s happening to you has no direct effect on what happens to me.

    If you’re looking for evidence of love, you’ve just found it.

  11. And if this is true:

    I should point out that while Christians have an anti-gay agenda (as you admitted) gays do not have a similar anti-Christian agenda.

    I’m a reindeer.

    (By the way, the part where I supposedly admitted to an anti-gay agenda is part of what’s wrong here.)

  12. Mr. Brown is just too clever. The correct answer to the question, by the way, is “I don’t know.” Polygamy has to withstand inspection and challenge but that doesn’t seem likely to happen because there doesn’t seem to be much of an advocacy movement for plural marriage.

    HP got the answer wrong (I sent a note to Peron at the time). However, Brown did not ask and intellectually honest question nor did he float and intellectually honest hypothesis. His purpose was – once again and reliably – to demonstrate his disapproval of gay people. It’s also not very original. Robby George said pretty much the same thing more than two years ago.

    Aside from that, it was too late. Same-sex marriage is done. Over. Law of the land: http://croaks.us/1TD9pZa

  13. There were lots of questions here. To which one are you referring with that “correct answer”?

    There didn’t seem to be much of an advocacy movement for gay marriage a few years ago. That there isn’t one for polygamy now is no indication that it won’t come even quicker than the one for gay marriage. One lawsuit has been filed, and the SCOTUS opinion’s use of the word “two” has no principled basis behind it, so polygamy might not need much of an advocacy movement.

    Oh, and by the way: did gay marriage get approved because of an advocacy movement? I thought people were saying it got approved because it was right according to the 14th Amendment. There is a distinction, you know.

    (I tend to think it was because of the advocacy movement, myself. I acknowledge the false dichotomy, by the way, in the way I posed the question. It’s possible both answers are correct. Either way the question is relevant, since it hadn’t ought to take an advocacy movement for the Court to see what’s in the Constitution, though an advocacy movement could make a Court suddenly see something there that wasn’t there before. Either way my answer to it is the same.)

    Nice to know you’re on a diminutive-first-name basis with Dr. George. He does use “Robby,” I know. I’m impressed you know him that well. And that you were close enough to Peron to send him a note. Very impressive indeed.

    I do know Michael Brown, and well enough to know that your psychological assessment of his purposes is off the mark.

  14. Oh, I forgot to thank you for that last paragraph. Quite informative. I was wondering whether the Supreme Court had ever gotten around to making that decision.

  15. Observation: Peron’s article cares a lot about the legal and economic contract on marriage as applies to the “spouse”. Notably absent is any reference to “child” or “children”.

    That said, a lot of the historical “law” (social and legal) on marriage is driven by the asymmetric nature of the relationships between husband, wife, and children. Perhaps part of the problem is that society has spent the last century or so trying to remove the asymmetry between husband and wife? If the roles are truly equivalent, then it doesn’t really matter what sexes are involved, does it?

  16. A few weeks ago right after the SCOTUS decision, and after some SSM supporters spat on a priest who unwittingly happened on a parade celebrating the decision, I wrote, “SSM activists certainly aren’t magnanimous in their victory. Apparently they still are not satisfied. Why is that?”
    https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2015/06/sexual-liberty-sexual-equality-sexual-fraternity-or-sorority/#comment-116029

    At the time I was cautioned by some SSM sympathizers that this was probably an isolated incident… a couple of bad actors… that it was unfair to claim “that the behavior was somehow characteristic of, or tainted, the whole ‘side’.”

    Now unfortunately, for them at least, if you take a fair sampling of the rhetoric coming from pro SSM side you will find the vitriol and outright hatred is not isolated, it predominates the so-called celebration. Just google some of the things that continue to be said about the bakers in Oregon who had their business shut down by SSM activists a couple of years ago for refusing to participate in a SSM wedding celebration. Or, some of the things that are being said about Dr. Michael Brown a Christian scholar who defends traditional marriage. Are people who support traditional marriage now irredeemably evil?

    So let me ask the question again: Why are those supporting SSM still unsatisfied with their victory?

    That is a question that for some reason SSM supporters seem unwilling to answer.

    That being said let me provide you my own theory. I think that the typical SSM proponent is like a toddler who throws a tantrum because his mother will not buy the toy he wants while they’re out shopping. Feeling pressured by her son’s behavior the mom finally relents and caves in. However, now he is upset because he now realizes not everyone likes him and he’s angry at everyone who doesn’t like him.

    Yes, I think the response from the SSM side has been immature and childish. I don’t see any better way of describing it.

    2000 years ago the apostle Paul wrote:

    When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways (1 Corinthians 13:11.)

    What is really scary is when highly educated US Supreme Court judges find merit in childish thinking like that. Indeed, the arguments for SSM have been childish from the start. (For example, ‘you don’t want to be on the wrong side of history,’ which BTW is not even an argument.) Personally I don’t think democratic society can survive that kind thinking.

  17. JAD,

    I think you’re right about this. Having SSM just isn’t enough and you can see that.

    I think of it like this. SSM proponents thought that if they could get SSM legalized that would solve their problem. That it would make everything right. Now that they have it they realize that it doesn’t really change anything about them personally and they’re not happy about that.

    I have friends who are a SS couple and are now married. A few years ago when we spoke to them about SSM they laughed at the idea of it. They didn’t want to be the same as the rest of (straight) society. They thought of themselves as different, rebels, part of an alternative lifestyle and they were proud of that. I believe that was a pretty common sentiment. Now, they’re married and I wonder if they weren’t right when they were laughing about it. With SSM they’ve lost what to them used to be a big part of their identity. I don’t see anything different about them now. They weren’t unhappy then and this doesn’t change much. “Just a piece of paper” is, I believe, the operative words.

  18. We were told that SSM wouldn’t affect anyone’s life except the SS couple seeking marriage. I don’t see that happening. It seems the SSM machine isn’t happy unless the law affects your life, my life.

  19. BillT,

    I was born in 1950. So I grew in the 60’s and became a young man in the 70’s. I remember the period well. I assure you that the roots of the social changes we are seeing today can be traced back to that time period, if not earlier. I have been a fly on the wall in enough conversations to know that so called gay rights and same sex marriage have little to do with rights and marriage and everything to do with the secular progressive left’s contempt for religion and traditional moral values. The approval of SSM as a “right” by SCOTUS has been nothing less than a successful act of subversion by an ideology that is opposed to free and open democratic society, which is why it is being forced upon us by the courts rather than being debated in the U.S. Congress.

    I’ve said this before. People need to wake up. The America we grew up in is going… going… and soon will be gone.

  20. JAD,

    We’re of the same era. I couldn’t agree more and have stated that here a number of times. But fellow poster Ray assured us this was all about equal rights and that they weren’t going to try to force churches to perform SSM against their wishes. Wonder if he’d assure us now.

  21. Well, it’s happened. After decades the Boy Scouts of America have finally caved.

    The Boy Scouts of America voted Monday to lift a long-established ban on gay adults as employees and volunteers within the organization.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421700/boy-scouts-end-ban-gay-scoutmasters-lgbt-groups-not-satisfied-unless-religious-liberty?target=author&tid=1048

    Given the current circumstances, I suppose, it was inevitable.

    Nevertheless, according to the HRC and LGBT left the BSA’s change of policy doesn’t go far enough, because it includes an exemption for church sponsored groups, which comprise the vast majority of local BSA troops.

    All this proves what I have been saying all along about the secular progressive left, which is behind the LGTB movement. It is an anti-religious, anti-democratic mindless ideology which is only interested in total cultural domination. Why? I have my theories… I am wondering what other people think.

  22. While some disagree with the result, it seems BSA followed a democratic process and voted their conscience. Whether others feel the resolution does not go far enough, to me it seems the will of the organization has been done, and so deserves respect for that, at least.

  23. While some disagree with the result, it seems BSA followed a democratic process and voted their conscience.

    I hardly consider caving into years of coercive pressure as following “a democratic process” or voting “their conscience.” Nevertheless the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t even give the American people that much say with their recent ruling legalizing SSM.

    However, I really don’t wish to go off on that tangent here. The writer that Tom refers to in the OP comes across as dogmatically self-righteous and moralizing. I don’t see that kind of attitude as being isolated and unrepresentative. Rather it is virtually ubiquitous among members of the far left, who have been the main driving force behind the most recent social changes. I am asking, why this is. What motivates this kind of thinking? I think that is a key question that needs to be answered here.

  24. BillT –

    But fellow poster Ray assured us this was all about equal rights and that they weren’t going to try to force churches to perform SSM against their wishes. Wonder if he’d assure us now.

    Just saw your comment. Yeah, I’ll still assure you. I never promised that people opposed to SSM would be popular or anything. But I didn’t see anything in any of the linked articles that said anything about forcing churches to perform marriages against their doctrines. What did I miss?

  25. Earlier I wrote (@ #27) concerning the Boy Scouts of America’s decision to finally cave-in under pressure and accept adult gay scout leaders:

    All this proves what I have been saying all along about the secular progressive left, which is behind the LGTB movement. It is an anti-religious, anti-democratic mindless ideology which is only interested in total cultural domination. Why? I have my theories… I am wondering what other people think.

    Here is my theory: The reason that secular progressive left is so obsessed with total cultural domination (TCD) is not simply a Nietzschean will-to-power (though that’s part of it) but unresolved existential guilt.

    What do I mean by existential guilt? It’s the guilt that comes with being human. It’s something that we’re all born with and on some level experience, even when we try to consciously or subconsciously avoid it.

    Where does this guilt come from? Christians believe that our existential guilt is the result of our fallen nature and that it can only be resolved by God’s willingness to forgive us through Christ’s atoning death.

    But then how does that committed secularist, who does not believe in God, deal with his existential guilt? Obviously, the source of guilt cannot be God, so from where does it originate? No doubt the secularist believes that our existential guilt comes from culture or society and that is where the tension exists between Biblical Christianity and secularism.

    Christians believe that God is the ultimate and unchanging ground of morality. So, to escape our sense of guilt we must turn to God—that is what is meant by repentance. Secularists, on the other hand, believe that the moral values of culture and society are evolving and changing. So to escape their sense of guilt they don’t need to change, society and culture needs to change, because our sense of guilt (from their perspective) comes from the obsolete morality and values of society and culture. That is why there is such hostility and intolerance towards any kind of traditional morality or values. This is why, despite their so-called recent victory in the U.S. Supreme Court redefining marriage, they still lash out at people like Michael Brown (see the OP) in such an intolerant and unrelenting manner. Changing society by changing the laws has not been enough. It will never be enough, because our existential guilt does not come from society it come from God.

    It you ever wanted proof that God exists, there it is. No it’s not absolute proof, but it’s the closest you’ll ever get.

    Well, that’s my theory. What do you think?