Comments on: Scott Lively: The Apocalypse Is Coming

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:53:17 +0000

No, the point was my objection to using that nut Scott Lively to tar all evangelicals and others who don’t favor normalizing/institutionalizing homosexual conduct.
I know what “homophobia” is–it’s a rhetorical trick to use genuine “homophobes” like that nut Scott Lively to discredit evangelicals and others who don’t favor normalizing/institutionalizing homosexual conduct but still respect the dignity of all human beings.
Such as the Catholic bishops:

For the sake of clarity, permit us first to state two basic tenets of Catholic Church teaching on this issue. First, persons with a homosexual inclination “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” and second “[u]nder no circumstances can [homosexual acts] be approved.” Catechism of the Catholic Church (“CCC”), nos. 2357-58.
Catholic teaching states that all people are created in the image and likeness of God and thus possess an innate human dignity that must be acknowledged and respected, by other persons and by law. We recognize that no one should be an object of scorn, hatred, or violence for any reason, including sexual inclination. The Church affords special concern and pastoral attention to those who experience a homosexual inclination and stands committed to avoid “[e]very sign of unjust discrimination in their regard.” CCC, no. 2358.
The Catholic Church makes an important distinction between actions and inclination.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/labor-employment/upload/joint-letter-on-enda-senate-help-2013-07-09.pdf
The epithet “homophobia” is the Godwin’s Law of discussing homosexuality. But it’s not checkmate, it’s merely overturning the table.

By: Patrocles

Patrocles — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:53:17 +0000

I’ve spent a lot of time to understand what people want to say when they call somebody/something “homophobic”.
The term obviously covers an extremely broad range of phenomena.
I think that there’s one definition which covers it best. If we see homosexuals as people who promote their interests, “homophobic” is everybody/everything which stands in the way of that (promotion of interests).
“Homophobia” can be reasonable or irrational, it can be justified or unjustified. (Different people attempt to restrain the concept in a way that it does only refer to irrational and/or unjustified behaviour, but as we all know, different people have different ideas about “irational” or “unjustified”, and these individual attempts don’t help us to understand the general meaning.)

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:53:17 +0000

[Scott Lively] is not some random guy on the internet that the gays are pumping up.
Well, a google search of his name
http://tinyurl.com/p7eoct9
turns up more attacks on him than support. He’s a convenient and easily mocked and refuted bogeyman. You didn’t engage me atall, “David.”
Finding the dumbest and most wack MFers out there and using them as a tool to beat on a whole group of people [evangelicals in this case] is stereotyping, bigotry and flat out filth of its own.
[FTR I’m not an evangelical. And yes, some are pretty wack. But that’s true of every group.]
You jumped into this discussion and have tried to disrupt it. As for who’s trolling, although Richard Willmer and I are disagreeing, we’re having a principled discussion–and often have them here at Warren’s blog. We don’t try to silence each other, let alone try to steamroll the discussion. I don’t call him a sodomite, he doesn’t call me a homophobe. Each is ignorant, and worse, is unkind. So back off a bit, bro. This blog is a very interesting place.

By: stephen

stephen — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:53:17 +0000

David made the point I was trying to make with more reasonableness and sense. If I get emotional it’s because Lively is only one among many who make their livings, in the case of the loathsome Jerry Falwell a very handsome living, from gay-bashing. I swear, if we weren’t around to vilify and defame they’d have had to invent us. Or some class of person like us. Perhaps who had darker skin. Hm. Or who were perhaps known for their ability with money. Hm.
It is the sheer volume of filth that is directed against gay people today as we are taking our earned place in the world that is distressing. And if it seems sometimes we overreact that, I believe, is the reason why. I understand that straight people don’t get this since, unlike Lively and his ilk, they don’t spend every waking hour obsessing about The Gay. Matter of fact, neither do I. But let him speak for himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiateDgcxKU
My point, Warren, and David did express it better, should have been that of course not every evangelical American is responsible for his filth but no one seems to try to speak out against him. No one exposes where his money comes from, and that I think is the important point. At least no one that I’m aware of. Operations like Lively’s and Falwell’s are always about money.
Sodom and Gomorrah? Good grief. That story is clearly not about sex, anal or otherwise, just as the story of Onan has nothing to do with masturbation. As a narrative of homosexual desire it makes no sense. And if we’re going to have to draw conclusions from it then let’s not leave out the rest of the story. After Lot’s wife is turned to salt and Lot finds himself alone with his daughters they get him drunk on two successive nights so they can, as Lively might express it, fornicate with him and thereby get pregnant. with their FATHER. The sheer icky nastiness of that cannot be read literally. It seems to me to be the shadow of an older creation story. Just as is the story of Noah (who had his own troubles with drunkenness) and the flood. However, as Jesus himself stated, or so it’s reported in Matthew and John, the OT is out of bounds. Since He gave as the purpose for His mission His imperative to temper the mosaic law with love He directed His followers to ignore what we know as the OT. If we want an example of Jesus’ attitude towards same-sex love we can look at the account of the Passover/Last Supper in John which presents Him stripping naked, wrapping Himself in a towel (echoing David), taking His followers’ feet into His lap to wash them, and then reclining with the head of the disciple He loved best (John?) on His breast. As a touching example of romantic homosexual love that does make sense. To me it presents Jesus at His most human just as He is about to be hauled before the religious court to answer the charge of blasphemy for which He was tried and executed. In fact it’s recreated to stunning effect in the fine French film which in English is entitled Of Gods and Men. A beautiful account of faith and love among a group of French monks living in North Africa. Why yes it available on Netflix.

By: ken

ken — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:44:50 +0000

Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 23, 2013 at 7:47 pm
“Falwell didn’t leave an opening to just call him a hater.”
yes he did. His interview has several homophobic comments in them. Granted they aren’t at the same level as some of Lively’s comments, but they are still there. You just can’t (or won’t) see them.