PFOX billboard blunder

 

Pink News reports…

“An ex-gay group’s billboard, which claims to feature identical twins with different sexualities, is actually two photos of the same gay man.

 

 

Christian anti-gay group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays launched a billboard in Richmond, Virginia featuring pictures of two identical men, claiming: “Identical twins. One gay, one not. We believe twins research studies show NOBODY IS BORN GAY”.

However, it turns out that far from being twins, the billboard is actually two pictures of the same man – and he’s gay, and does not even have a twin brother.

Stock image model Kyle Roux – who sat for the photos several years ago – reached out to NBC after seeing the story online.

He said: “I was obviously quite shocked, so that why I decided to send you guys an email saying hey, I’m that guy in that billboard.

“It just seems like there no place in today’s world for an organization that is promoting this as being some kind of deviant or distasteful lifestyle, because I’ve lived my life openly gay and happy for my entire life.”However, PFOX board member Chris Doyle sees no issue with the ad.He said: “The issue isn’t the photo on the billboard, but the actual science.

“PFOX supports the rights of everyone who wants to pursue that for themselves.”

From http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/12/twins-on-ex-gay-groups-billboard-are-actually-the-same-man-and-hes-gay/

Advertisements

94 thoughts on “PFOX billboard blunder

  1. “I have more sexual partners than a battery hen”

    Ya don’t say Wazza?….that explains pretty much everything….I feel sorry for you poor wife & kids….you are no Christian by any stretch of the pagan imagination, and I hope everyone can see that…

    Like

  2. “…I do not consider ‘homosexual’ to be in any sense either an adequate or necessary word to use when speaking of, to, or with a gay person….”

    LMAO!….well mate, I don’t consider phenomenal self-indulgence, bizarre and perverted conduct and promiscuity at levels never imagined in the normal population with the average rank and file homosexual having more sexual partners than a battery hen, high rates of psychiatric illnesses, drug abuse, and suicide (even true in pansy European nations like the Netherlands where the moral compass is as FUBAR as a Chinese fire drill, and George Orwell’s ‘1984’ now sits in the non-fiction part of the Library) and, among many, many other quite shitty selling points – significant loss of life expectancy (no surprise in light of the aforementioned)…… to be in any sense meaningful when using the term “gay” to describe a homosexual persons’ lifestyle!!!

    Like

  3. Bahaha…neck trying to blow a bubble.

    the word ‘euphemism is defined as ‘a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing’

    Yes I do think ‘gay’ is a euphemism for ‘homosexual’ I do not consider ‘homosexual’ to be in any sense either an adequate or necessary word to use when speaking of, to, or with a gay person.

    Like

  4. Greggsta! You don’t agree that the term ‘Gay’ is a euphemism for homosexual? Wouldn’t you rather someone describe you as ‘follically challenged’ than crudely describing your bald nut as your neck trying to blow a bubble?

    Like

  5. Which church can you go to where you dance in front of a crowd in your mommas pantyhose and lipstick with your mardi gras t-shirt?

    I think you could get away with it in my church – you’d have a 100% chance of getting away with it were you to be an arch deacon or a canon of the cathedral – but you could definitely get away with it even as a lay person.

    I think the ‘Gay’ community need to first explain why they need Orwellian artificial scatological euphemisms like ‘Gay’ to avoid the term “homosexual’

    All you do with every word you utter on this subject is put on display your total ignorance of etymology.

    Have a look HERE and ,a hrtef=”http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/fashion/gays-lesbians-the-term-homosexual.html?_r=0″>HERE and stop being so gay

    Like

  6. Dunno Wazza? evidently you approve (and possibly participate) in all sort of sexual dysfunction and perversion – religious phonies like you are renowned for it

    Like

  7. Which church can you go to where you dance in front of a crowd in your mommas pantyhose and lipstick with your mardi gras t-shirt?

    It sounds like fun – I’m sure its more fun than the church that SD attends.

    Like

  8. I mean if Paul was wrong about long hair being unnatural then he must be right about gay sex.

    Right?

    (Let’s not forget Paul didn’t like sex or marriage at all)

    Like

  9. 1. “Jesus’ virgin birth, teachings, miracles, death, resurrection, ascending to Heaven etc are all unnatural”

    Unless your somehow asserting that Jesus was teaching, performing miracles, being resurrected, or ascending to Heaven whilst dancing in front of a crowd getting his rocks off wearing his 2015 gay mardi gra t-shirt, an old pair of his mommas pantyhose and lipstick – I would take issue with your understanding of “supernatural’ as opposed to ‘unnatural’ there….but hey, knock yourself out……?

    2. “Even Paul himself acknowledges in Romans 11 – as he makes his argument based on a false premise – that God Himself is above ‘nature’”

    Well…if your making definitive doctrinal statements about the nature of “God” in a Christian context – what authority are you relying on and where does that authority promote that proposition??

    3. “The philosophy behind ‘physin’ (nature) is the opposite of the gospel which says believers DO get eternal life what they DON’T deserve”

    Ummm…ok??….I don’t see the connection there?? Is that like saying the color ‘blue’ is the opposite to the week-day ‘Wednesday’ or something profoundly postmodern like that ….or am I just thinking about the differences between apples and oranges too much???

    4. “This is why the church is so confused…..”

    well…lets just say that when all the confused church folk are dancing in front of a crowd getting their rocks off wearing their 2015 gay mardi gra t-shirt, an old pair of their mommas pantyhose and lipstick, we’ll revisit that one….ok??

    5. “Gay people are caught in the middle of these dual/opposing beliefs…..

    I think the ‘Gay’ community need to first explain why they need Orwellian artificial scatological euphemisms like ‘Gay’ to avoid the term “homosexual’ (simply meaning “same”, and Latin sexus, meaning “sex”) when their homosexual behavior is so obviously “NATURAL”??

    6. “Now, go read Romans 1 again everyone, this time with the understanding that ‘nature’ – the basis of Paul’s argument – is a pagan philosophy, used by Paul to clumsily make his point that all are sinners without exception.

    Well said….yes, everyone go read Romans 1 again and ask yourself: “do words mean anything?”

    Like

  10. ““Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,” (1 Cor 11:14)”

    That verse, and the reference to the Greek philosophical concept of nature (physin) is THE key to understanding why Paul’s basis for his argument against homosexuality (in Romans 1) is BS..

    Jesus’ virgin birth, teachings, miracles, death, resurrection, ascending to Heaven etc are all unnatural – ‘para physin’ (against ‘nature’)

    Even Paul himself acknowledges in Romans 11 – as he makes his argument based on a false premise – that God Himself is above ‘nature’.

    But Paul clearly accepts the Greek philosophical concept of ‘nature’ as being a ‘real thing’… when it is really just an invention of Greek philosophers.

    The philosophy behind ‘physin’ (nature) is the opposite of the gospel which says believers DO get eternal life what they DON’T deserve.

    This is why the church is so confused. It simultaneously embraces two polar opposite gospels. The Jesus gospel (para physin – against nature) and the Paul gospel (kata physin – according to nature)

    Gay people are caught in the middle of these dual/opposing beliefs.

    “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,” (1 Cor 11:14)”

    No, nature doesn’t teach us anything because the Greek philosophers (the Stoics) devised the concept of ‘nature’ (physin) which Paul has borrowed.

    Now, go read Romans 1 again everyone, this time with the understanding that ‘nature’ – the basis of Paul’s argument – is a pagan philosophy, used by Paul to clumsily make his point that all are sinners without exception.

    No-one in the church ever stops and asks themselves .. ‘what is “nature”?’

    Now you know.

    Like

  11. Or this gem by Paul

    “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,” (1 Cor 11:14)

    Answer: No!

    Like

  12. It’s a bid sad for you that the whole hell thing doesn’t scare people anymore isn’t it?

    By what ‘authority’ do you not kill gays? Or own slaves? Or tell women on their period they are ‘unclean’?

    Seems you’ve made up your own ‘authority’ or you have your own Brian Houston/Creflo Dollar type to fawn over.

    At least Luther and Calvin tried to live out their ‘authority’ by calling out death to heretics and Jews.

    Your ‘authority’ is your own interpretation.

    I actually find it quite comforting to know that modern archaeology shows that the Exodus and the Canaanite genocide never happened but were the work of nationalist revisionists.

    “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?” (“Blah, blah, blah authority”)

    (Btw I gather God is a greater Being than I am. so if I don’t require slaughter for the forgiveness of sins, why does this God? Oh and of course for the first thousand years, Christians believed the atonement was to appease the Devil before Anselm’s nonsense heralded Penis Substitutionary Atonement).

    Like

  13. So you think you have based your beliefs on some authority because you believe literally in the Bible.

    Well good for you, but you still have the problem of interpretation.

    Eg :

    Jesus : “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. ”

    Now I put it to you that every man in the world who is not a homosexual is guilty of this. So according to a literal reading they should gouge out their eye or go straight to hell (gays are presumably already going there).

    The fact that there are no congregations of mutilated fundamentalists looking like pirates with eye patches means that clearly there is some interpretation going on. It is interpreted as hyperbole, something Jesus said to illustrate a point.

    But where do they get the authority to decide which verses to interpret non-literally and which ones to interpret literally? Fundos deride Liberals for interpreting certain versus as literary allusions, but clearly they also interpret some verses non-literally. Who decides which ones?

    Your authority argument therefore dies in the arse. Stop putting your faith in authority and embrace life with all its uncertainty. We have no absolutely firm basis on which to build our faith, but if we did it wouldnt be faith.

    Like

  14. lol…ok…well, save to say that you are indeed “wrong”, I just have a little hankering to know how it is you (and that other post-modern liberal peanut “Bones”) can make definitive doctrinal statements about what God says or doesn’t say, or what God requires and doesn’t require – but have no friggin idea what authority you can offer in support of such contentions (how very post-modern)……

    Like

  15. Didn’t you read my comment? I’m really not interested in entering rod about of convoluted questions and answers were yo try to show me how smart and doctrinally correct you are…how about you just tell me you think I’m wrong and we’ll leave it at that.

    Like

  16. “…God, has not required such either”
    Hi Greg, on what authority do you determine what God has said and what God hasn’t said?

    Like

  17. God doesn’t need a blood sacrifice to forgive sins. I can forgive sins without a sacrifice. God can too. If that is why Jesus died on the cross then it was a waste of time. Some people need to rethink what the crucifixion was about and stop believing medieval superstition.

    Lol, Bones, the likes of SD and every other evangelical seem to neglect the reading of scripture, either that or they just don’t believe the words they are reading, the ones they claim are out of the mouth of Christ himself!
    In the case of what I’m about to quote, I actually do believe that this is one if the rare times in the Gospels that we actually do get the true words of Jesus.

    “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us”

    I, as you Bones, have not yet required a single sacrificial death to have been offered before I could foregive someone their sin against me….God, has not required such either.

    Like

  18. God doesn’t need a blood sacrifice to forgive sins. I can forgive sins without a sacrifice. God can too. If that is why Jesus died on the cross then it was a waste of time. Some people need to rethink what the crucifixion was about and stop believing medieval superstition.

    Like

  19. “because the author of the Gospel was…….anti-Semitic??? (even though he was Semitic)”

    There’s no one more vindictive than those scorned by their religion. So the author of John and his community have broken away and had a falling away from the Jewish community. John (unlike the early disciples who worshipped in synagogues and some did for centuries) responds that Judaism has no part with Christianity, they are darkness and to mark that separation ‘John’ formulates credal statements such as I am the way, the Truth and the Life, No one can get to the father but through me, and of course John 3:16 which is aimed at Christians and not Jews.

    So John is not only the source of anti-semitism which has plagued Christian history resulting in the holocaust (hi Martin Luther) but also of Christian elitism.

    Maybe next time Jesus will choose his words better. Or write his own book.

    Like

  20. It’s necessary to humbly submit to the Lordship of Christ.

    And how is that done?

    A: By asking every head to be bowed and saying in a loud confident voice ‘OOoooh Lord, I humble myself before you’

    Or B: by attempting to follow what He said to do (eg. in the Sermon on the Mount).

    It’s necessary not to trust in our own righteousness but to believe and trust in Jesus, and receive His free gift of righteousness. We must seek His forgiveness for our sin and disobedience.

    Again there are two approaches :

    A: One is to seek a blanket pass for all your sins. ‘Cover me with your Blood, Jesus and wash away all my Sin’

    Or

    B: Seeking forgiveness to actually reflect on your sins – and in repentance make plans not to do it again and make reparations for the hurt caused.

    I try to take the B: path, whereas many on here seem to take A: . Then they deride B: as a namby-pamby Liberal faithless agenda.

    Like

  21. It’s necessary to humbly submit to the Lordship of Christ.
    It’s necessary not to trust in our own righteousness but to believe and trust in Jesus, and receive His free gift of righteousness. We must seek His forgiveness for our sin and disobedience.
    Do you heed the message of John to repent?
    Do you heed the message of Jesus not to forfeit your soul?
    Or has the word no root in you?

    Like

  22. Is it sufficient just to say “I believe in Jesus” to get out of Hell? But the demons believe….

    Or do you have to believe everything written about Him in the Bible? Or the entire Bible?

    What about if I have doubts about some passages – that they may be specific to 1st Century Palestine or Rome? Is it straight to Hell for me then?

    Lets say Paul thinks women should wear hats to church, and I say not necessarily in present day Australia. Am I going to be fried to a crisp for a million years and then realise that I havent even shortened the length of my sentence? Is it going to be more fire and brimstone and demons shoving lava up my entrails for another million years?

    A bit harsh for disagreeing about the wearing of hats.

    Like

  23. Bones: “Fred Hollows was a better person than SD can ever hope to be.”

    fair call but “Fred Hollows” aside (coz he isn’t God ….like Jesus kinda is), Jesus Christ is a far greater savior than I could ever hope to be a sinner…..and totally sufficient to mongrels like me who come to Him faith – but sadly not for you and your mates here who persist wilfully and disobediently in unbelief (despite the light that you have been given) and trust in your own righteousness….

    Like

  24. ROFL!!!
    1. “It’s why John never refers to Jesus and the disciples as Jews and the Jews were of their father the devil.”…..

    yep – that could be the ONLY plausible reason why John did not properly designate Jesus and the disciples as “Jews” in his Gospel because after all, the Gospel of John is a sociological survey of ethno-cultural and an ethnoreligious groups originating from the historical Middle East….how could the author have possibly omitted that fairly self-friggin evident information (lol)

    2. “The antisemitism in the gospels was a reflection of the disputes between the synagogue and Christians. Especially in John the Christians symbolise light, truth, the Jews darkness and lies and Jesus the only way to heaven.”

    yep – that could be the ONLY plausible reason why it was recited that Jesus said “no one can come to the Father but by me” – because the author of the Gospel was…….anti-Semitic??? (even though he was Semitic)….he was probably anti-Obama too!!!! of course it couldn’t possibly be one of a number of places where the Gospels expressly and deliberately recounts Jesus claiming for himself the divine attributes (after all….its not as if that one of the major themes of the Gospel of John particularly – is it???)

    So much stupidity…so little time….but nonetheless very entertaining – Your a complete snapperhead Bones, keep it up!!

    Like

  25. Fred Hollows was a better person than SD can ever hope to be. And contributed more to society. SD would rather watch his Brian Houston DVDs and live his best life now. One day SD will be enlightened and follow the ranks of great Christian scholars such as Desmond Tutu, Jack Spong and Marcus Borg.

    Like

  26. It’s quite logical. It’s why John never refers to Jesus and the disciples as Jews and the Jews were of their father the devil. The antisemitism in the gospels was a reflection of the disputes between the synagogue and Christians. Especially in John the Christians symbolise light, truth, the Jews darkness and lies and Jesus the only way to heaven. This was no biography of the life of Jesus but a rewriting of the life of Jesus taking into account the author’s actual context and the expulsion of Christians from their local synagogues.

    Like

  27. “All those exclusivist verses in the Gospels (eg no one can come to the Father but by me) were borne out of conflicts with the local synagogues in the gospel writers times. They weren’t uttered by Jesus at all.”

    Another falsehood you have swallowed hook line and sinker.
    The falsehood is completely inconsistent with Jesus’ teaching, and the teaching and understanding of his disciples, and the understanding of the early church.
    You have the blinkers on, staggering from one lie to the next.

    Like

  28. Greggsta! Where have you been?? love the new “avatar makeover” (screaming for a parody tho!) but still…..it looks like not much has changed coz a monkey still has a hairy parent, an orphan still has nary a parent, a prince is still an heir apparent, and even with the addition of the silly hat, you STILL have no hair apparent??

    Wazza – Im sure it’s not denial – your just a bit more selective about the reality you accept

    Bones…..wtf? don’t honestly know where to begin there……

    Like

  29. SD you must have swallowed a systematic theology text book: “plenary authority and inspiration of scripture”, “you are unconverted as evidenced by, among other things, your hatred of the penal substitutionary death of Christ”,

    I did find the following remark from you quite interesting:
    “Why…find sodomy…as I do…see…your…dick”

    Are you trying to bed Bones?

    Like

  30. Seems some want their own version of sharia law to be followed.

    Here’s a thought as well.

    All those exclusivist verses in the Gospels (eg no one can come to the Father but by me) were borne out of conflicts with the local synagogues in the gospel writers times. They weren’t uttered by Jesus at all.

    I know it will make some sad on here that they can’t scare people any more.

    Like

  31. Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a Medieval Catholic invention. It’s a natural outcome where Christianity was the judge, jury and executioner.

    Like

  32. The risen Christ never taught Paul and he would never have read any of the gospels. And Peter hung around Jesus before and after his resurrection and STILL didn’t get it about gentiles.

    Most of Paul’s teachings come from Greek philosophy especially about the dualism of flesh and spirit.

    eg 1 Cor 11:14
    “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,”

    No, it doesn’t.

    Like

  33. “Why do you prefer your own system of morality?”

    I don’t believe in killing gays or stoning women caught in adultery or burning witches or heretics or that my wife is unclean at certain times of the month. The only thing stopping you nuts is that sort of behaviour is illegal.

    The Old testament is immoral. Thankfully God had nothing to do with it’s writing.

    Like

  34. Actually if you read Galatians 1, it specifically says that Paul wasnt taught the doctrine.

    And Luther is on record as saying he didnt consider the Epistle of James to be canonical.

    It actually takes an apostate to untwist your mind on these things. Instead of comforting yourself on your belief and your get-out-of-hell-free status, maybe you should listen to the apostates a little.

    Like

  35. Funny….the risen Christ taught Paul his theology….and Luther never tried to get James’ epistle thrown out of the Bible….but then again I expect an unconverted apostate like you Wazza to twist facts and scripture…

    Like

  36. I do have a bit of catching up to do.

    But not half as much as you would have if you didn’t play your penal-sub get-out-of-hell-free card.

    Hope you got your theology right – using Paul, Anselm and Luther’s writings in order to disregard Jesus’ word.

    Have you not heard that faith without works is dead? Luther tried to get that book thrown out of the Bible but even he couldnt do that.

    Like

  37. “So, because you believe in the penal substitutionary death of Christ – you don’t feel that you need to obey His commandments.”

    No, but because you are unconverted as evidenced by, among other things, your hatred of the penal substitutionary death of Christ “YOU” need obey His commandments and the whole of the law – in fact you need to obey them/it “P E R F E C T L Y”……Good luck with that…, you’d better get busy I imagine you have a lot of catching up to do

    Like

  38. So, because you believe in the penal substitutionary death of Christ – you don’t feel that you need to obey His commandments.

    You have replaced ethical standards with standards of belief.

    To people like you the Gospels may as well not exist… the Baby Jesus could have been taken from the manger and hung up on the cross, and it would not affect your version of Christianity.

    It is classic in-group/out-group belief system stuff – you are unable to reflect on your behaviour because you believe you have been ‘justified’ by faith.

    Like

  39. Well, my little politically correct friend while your throwing the Lord a bouquet for his ethics, remember that in light of your rebellion and refusal to appropriate by faith, trust and belief, the substitutionary death and penal atonement of Christ on your behalf, you had better be doing all of that ‘peacemaking, mercy, pure heart, good deed, righteous’ stuff “perfectly” after all, the final admonition to the crowd is “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”

    Of course if its your desire to be judged by the perfect standard of the law, then that’s what you’ll get …..it never surprises me how liberal apostates twist this divine prophetic discourse into a series of moralistic platitudes of which we can compare ourselves to Ghandi, Mother Teresa, or Pope Francis 🙂

    Like

  40. Maybe you should read it again. It dosent say anything about being a believer or an unbeliever.

    It talks about being a peacemaker, merciful, pure in heart

    It talks of being a light to the world, of good deeds, of righteousness and reconciliation.

    It is nothing like the mean and hateful thing you have made it.

    Like

  41. Wazza, by all means, stock up on marshmallows as the very text your misquoting (the sermon on the mount) is actually making the point that its pseudo (un)believers like you who will be giving the guided tour of the joint!

    Like

  42. Wazza – the argument and ad hominem aside, I think there is enough empirical evidence on record here and elsewhere, straight from your own ‘musings’ that proves beyond doubt your incapable of meaningful argument…and a complete plonker to boot!!…..

    Like

  43. Wazza2, by all means brush it off as a logical fallacy if you like.

    I’m not brushing, it is simply a fact that the argument is an ad-hominem, and therefore a logical fallacy.

    But in doing so you are ignoring an obvious aspect of human nature in all of us. It’s in our nature to resist moral accountability when we revel in that immoral conduct. Is it any surprise people turn on the legitimacy of the text or God himself when the Bible shows our conduct to be sinful?

    True but it does not follow that because someone is (presumably) sinful and they argue against the legitimacy of the text that the text is therefore legitimate.

    All people are sinful and many argue against the legitimacy of the Koran. But it does not necessarily mean that the Koran is the legitimate standard from God that we all should follow.

    Btw when are you going to answer my question as to why you prefer your own system of morality or are you going to continue to ignore the question?

    I thought I said that everyone has their own system of morality, and Christians use it to inform their interpretation of the Bible. ( … and everyone has an interpretation of the Bible by the way)

    So, when Jesus says that ‘If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even their own life–such a person cannot be my disciple.’ – most Christians do not interpret that super-literally and actually do or say hateful things to their families. This is because they have a system of morality independent of the Bible.

    With respect to standards of morality. If Jesus is divine and the Bible is His word, then the standard exists.

    Yes but then you have the problem of how you know that Jesus is divine and the Bible is his Word. By looking in the Bible? That’s a circular argument. By direct divine revelation? Then why do you need the Bible as a standard?

    His standard of absolute morality, whereby goodness actually exists as does evil. This happens to be the standard of the believer.

    Many other people have a standard of good and evil whereby they believe that it actually exists.

    Outside of God’s standard of morality, there is the abyss of moral relativism whereby Stalin can declare his standard of morality just as legitimate as anyone else’s.

    Stalin appealed to a standard of values and ethics – his interpretation of Communism. Christians have on occasions inflicted great evil by appealing to an interpretation of the Bible – eg. ‘Slaves obey your Masters’. You will say that they werent true Christians but that would be a ‘True Scotsman’ fallacy.

    Like

  44. Wazza2, by all means brush it off as a logical fallacy if you like. But in doing so you are ignoring an obvious aspect of human nature in all of us. It’s in our nature to resist moral accountability when we revel in that immoral conduct. Is it any surprise people turn on the legitimacy of the text or God himself when the Bible shows our conduct to be sinful?
    Btw when are you going to answer my question as to why you prefer your own system of morality or are you going to continue to ignore the question?

    With respect to standards of morality. If Jesus is divine and the Bible is His word, then the standard exists. His standard of absolute morality, whereby goodness actually exists as does evil. This happens to be the standard of the believer.

    Outside of God’s standard of morality, there is the abyss of moral relativism whereby Stalin can declare his standard of morality just as legitimate as anyone else’s.

    Like

  45. Ray could be right, or maybe he is just taking comfort in a standard ‘Christian’ world-view.

    Its a generalised ad-hominem argument which amounts to “they don’t like the Bible cause they are wicked’ It shuts down debate and it cannot be refuted, because its a logical fallacy.

    I could just as easily construct a similar ad-hominem such as “Fundamentalist Christians have repressed their sin, so they compensate by selectively taking verses from the Bible and condemning other groups” This argument is similarly fallacious.

    I dont agree that some people have a ‘standard’ (ie. the Bible) for their morality and others have no standard at all. There is an in-built standard of morality that is understood by almost all peoples, although they fall short of it. Christians use that in-built moral compass to help interpret the Bible, and the Bible helps to reset their moral compass.

    Like

  46. Maybe Ray Comfort is spot on with this facebook post:

    “We must always keep in mind why the world hates the Bible. If it is God’s Word, they are accountable for adultery, fornication, homosexuality, for sinful imaginations, and for lust (which scripture says is adultery of the heart). So their hill upon which they will die agenda is to prove that the God of the Bible is unjust in His judgments, and therefore any thought of Judgment Day and Hell are bogus.
    They are searching after truth about as much as a man dying of thirst searches for salt. They rather want to bolster their case for an evil Bible, so they fortify themselves behind what they believe are mistakes, contradictions, atrocities, etc., in its pages.”

    Like

  47. You have a point that very few people follow the Bible’s morality system, but how does that have a bearing on your belief or unbelief in Christ and his word?
    Christ calls us to make disciples of all nations. That should be the primary focus.
    But maybe you are right. Divorce is very destructive to families, especially children.
    Christian mainstream opposition to homosexual lifestyles is disproportionate compared to its opposition to divorcees. But truth is truth regardless of the conduct or contradictions of the Christian mainstream. If the Bible is God’s word then a homosexual lifestyle is also sinful. If we reject God’s morality, then our owned flawed corrupt self rules over us at the expense of ourselves and others.

    Why do you prefer your own system of morality?

    Like

  48. Wazza2:

    Grace always trumps Law and the ideals. Ironically, Grace is freely available to everyone – however it comes at a price. Grace cannot be decoupled from discipleship that has it beginnings in authentic belief and true repentance.

    Bonhoeffer expressed this as:

    “Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline. Communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ.”

    Like

  49. Wazza: “Very few people follow the Bible’s morality system. Eg. to be consistent, fundamentalist Christians should lobby the Government to outlaw divorce ….”

    Why? many people who do not profess faith still find sodomy a foul and disgusting practice, as I do, and yet do not see any point whatsoever in it (sodomy) or divorce being “outlawed”…..your a dick

    Like

  50. Bones: “Poor old STD just couldn’t nail it with his ‘authority’ argument. It’s a circular argument in which the Bible gives STD authority because STD says it does.”

    Bones – as an avid unbeliever (who just cant bring himself to admit it yet) please then enlighten your circular reasoning opponent as to how you propose to advance your argument against the plenary authority and inspiration of scripture given that the issue is already settled by the very presuppositions you will inevitably bring to the table if you choose to properly debate the issue?

    Like

  51. Is it because you prefer your own morality system and philosophy?

    Very few people follow the Bible’s morality system. Eg. to be consistent, fundamentalist Christians should lobby the Government to outlaw divorce and re-marriage – 1 in 3 marriages ends in divorce and many of those people will remarry – Jesus says they are adulterers. Repentance would surely consist of separating from the new partner and remarrying the old, or remaining celibate. Just on the numbers alone, this is much more of a threat to ‘Biblical marriage’ than homosexual partnerships.

    It is much more likely that a Christian school or church will deny membership to a homosexual couple than to a couple where one partner has been divorced. Yet Jesus explicitly mentions divorce and omits homosexuality.

    Lionfish talks about Grace , which is a well-reasoned and considered response, but is Grace extended by Christians to all or is there some partiality as to who it is extended to?

    Why are some verses used as ‘clobber’ versus against some groups, whereas verses equally capable of being used against other groups are ignored?

    Yes, I prefer my own system of morality over a literal reading of the Bible, and you do too.

    Like

  52. Wazza2, I also accept the authority of Jesus’ teaching on divorce. ie unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as marital unfaithfulness, divorce and subsequent re-marriage are sinful.
    I would allow truly repentant sinners to be church members, as I believe Jesus has the power to forgive sin, and bring about transformation and redemption of a person.
    Because of God’s grace and power of forgiveness, I believe truly repentant sinners can be called by God to become pastors. Like Andrew Chan who is serving as a pastor in the Bali prison.
    What about you? Why do you reject the authority and Lordship of Christ? Is it because you prefer your own morality system and philosophy?

    Like

  53. Wazza2 – Clearly God hates divorce, and it is not permissible to divorce except for marital unfaithfulness. Ideally, divorced and remarried people should not be “accepted” in Church as they are in an adulterous relationship ….

    But I accept that following the ideal is near on impossible and the Church can follow Jesus’ example and accept repentant sinners (such as the woman at the well that had numerous husbands and was living with a man). Grace should take precedence over the ideal.

    Acceptance should be couched in Grace and repentance.

    Like

  54. So you wouldn’t accept divorced and remarried people in your church? Unless they are celibate?

    Do you also oppose the law that allows divorced people to re-marry?

    Like

  55. Bones –
    Obviously it is my decision to be a dickhead.
    And of course I aspire to be as graceful, popular, intelligent and as endearing as your dear self.

    Like

  56. Brett, do you accept the authority of Jesus’ teaching on divorce :

    I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

    Would you allow practising re-married people to be members of your church, or even to be a Pastor?

    Like

  57. So you reject the authority of scripture, that it is the inspired Word of God. You reject the authority of Jesus’ teachings and the teachings of the disciples.
    No bones about it. Don’t obfuscate. Is that where you are at?

    If it is I think that is truly a tragic place to be. Lead by one’s own philosophies, and self deceit rather than the lordship of Christ.

    Like

  58. But.. But … every word of the Bible is inspired by God
    It says so in the Bible… “All Scripture is God-breathed” So it must be true.

    Its not easy to judge people by their actions, words and deeds. It might even lead to charges of hypocrisy.

    But it is easy to judge whether they believe that the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God – just ask them if they do. If they say ‘yes’ then they are saved, if they um and err then they are damned – its very simple.

    If they bring up certain difficult passages of the Bible and ask whether you believe them just say that you wont be questioned by some Liberal, commie unbeliever.

    Like

  59. Poor old STD just couldn’t nail it with his ‘authority’ argument. It’s a circular argument in which the Bible gives STD authority because STD says it does.

    Like

  60. Good come back girls (Greg, Wazza, Bones) but you forgot to call us “big gunky heads”…just to add that faggy touch of neo-liberal conviction…. 🙂

    Like

  61. Personally I appeal to the authority of the Prophet Stevie Wonder:

    They say that heaven is 10 zillion light years away
    And just the pure at heart will walk her righteous streets someday
    They say that heaven is 10 zillion light years away
    But if there is a God, we need Him now
    “Where is your God”
    That’s what my friends ask me
    And I say it’s taken Him so long
    ‘Cause we’ve got so far to come..

    Like

  62. “There is no hell that al the sinners of the world are damned to spend eternity in, There is no heaven up in the sky awaiting the good or the orthodox, or the Calvinist….”

    So on the basis that we know the Scriptures contradict pretty much every word uttered there…just out of morbid interest, what authority do you appeal to Greg as the sole rule for faith and practice of your…”faith” [whatever it is]??? …

    Like

  63. To be honest – i couldn’t give a rats fart anymore about the whole ‘born that way/made that way’ The only thing I think that matters is how we have shown each other love. There is no hell that al the sinners of the world are damned to spend eternity in, There is no heaven up in the sky awaiting the good or the orthodox, or the Calvinist – the Kingdom of God is now – it is here on this earth…and it’s only law is to love others and to love God

    Like

  64. “Sexual Orientation” is a load of Orwellian 1984 ‘New Speak’ Marxist Crap….snap out of it you politically correct fairies…

    Like

  65. Wazza – I do not think you can categories all on these blogs a liberal vs conservative.

    Some of us a re swinging bloggers – dependening on the issue. 🙂

    Like

  66. “It’s the same brain running every physiological function last time I looked”.

    Yes – same brain – different parts run different functions.

    Winking (a function common to all people) and sexual orientation (not common to all people) can hardly be used to illustrate your point.

    Like

  67. “On a serious note, that thinking can hardly apply to sexual orientation – otherwise the evidence would offer a physiological explanation for sexual orientation.”

    I think there is some evidence for a physiological explanation :

    Recent brain research has revealed structural differences in the hypothalamus in relation to biological sex and sexual orientation. Differences in size and cell number of various nuclei in the hypothalamus for homosexual versus heterosexual men have recently been reported in two studies.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7560933

    Although there are surely other factors involved – as the paper admits :

    The functional implications of these findings in determining adult sexual orientation are as yet far from clear.

    But in all seriousness what seems more clear-cut for me (after reading these blogs for years) is the difference between the brains of conservative and liberal thinkers. There appear to be two very different tribes of people who are pre-disposed to certain views and attitudes, and who cannot come to agreement based on insurmountable factors.

    Like

  68. “Lance – stop being such a winker – you can hardly compare a normal physiological requirement with sexual orientation.”

    It’s the same brain running every physiological function last time I looked.

    There’s not a blinking orientation brain (some people do blink more/less often than others) and a different sexual orientation brain.

    Blinking is about discipline, control and choice.

    Like

  69. Wazza – saw that documentary too. In a nutshell the underlying assertion is that people who vote conservative were born with larger brains more efficient cognitive processes etc than non-conservatives so it is very difficult, if not impossible to change mindsets. 🙂

    On a serious note, that thinking can hardly apply to sexual orientation – otherwise the evidence would offer a physiological explanation for sexual orientation.

    Lance – stop being such a winker – you can hardly compare a normal physiological requirement with sexual orientation. 🙂

    Like

  70. Some people are effectively born conservative :

    “The differences between liberals and conservatives run wide and deep, and a new study suggests they may even be reflected in the very structure of their brains.

    In the study, led by Ryota Kanai of the University College London, people who identified themselves as liberals generally had a larger anterior cingulate cortex — a comma-shaped region near the front of the brain that is involved in decision-making. By contrast, those who identified as conservatives had larger amygdalas — almond-shaped structures that are linked with emotional learning and the processing of fear”

    http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/08/liberal-vs-conservative-does-the-difference-lie-in-the-brain/

    Like

  71. First of all I think your question is best directed to God since He forms all humans in the womb, not I.

    Human sexuality remains poorly understood and *anyone* who states definitively that a particular inclination is the result of innate factors or a ‘choice’ is kidding themselves.

    Drawing inferences or extending arguments based on grandstanding guesswork from gay activists is just silly.

    But I won’t leave you empty-handed.

    How about this?

    I believe the human brain *is* hard-wired to lie.

    Every night when you go to sleep, without you having any control whatsoever, your mind is continually inventing *fictional* scenarios and situations (dreams)

    So, to what extent does that fiction-producing part of the mind influence our awake world?

    Is the ‘dream-weaver’ asleep when we are awake, or is it actively at work in our awake state, including influencing our sexuality (among other thoughts)

    Hmmmm

    The key to working this out is neuro-science, not genes IMHO.

    Like

  72. Lance – not talking about forced sex. Is it a choice or to qoute Lady GaGa – are some people “born that way” or is it a choice?

    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