The following is my message to antigay activist Bernie Dehler (email, web) regarding his unrepentant sins, which became the subject of this unrelated discussion of Jerry Falwell’s misrepresentations about exgays.
Dear Bernie,
You point fingers at people whom you assume to be homosexual sinners, but the issue boils down to your unrepentant sin. No one else’s.
But first, let’s address your misrepresentations about marriage.
An allegation of homosexual sin by conservative Christians has nothing to do with the right to civil marriage, because conservative Christians do not own or define civil marriage, nor do they speak for God. Marriage is a civil institution — a good thing, because as recently as the 1980s, conservative Christian publications such as Campus Life sought to prevent interracial marriage. Opposition to civil marriage for gay couples may be valid, but must be based on civil grounds. Marriage is a privilege and not a right, however; support for civil marriage for gay couples must be based on sound civil and social justifications.
If you wish to achieve a moral high ground in your understanding of your perceived opponents, Mr. Dehler, you would be wise to borrow and read a copy of Jonathan Rauch’s book on marriage so that you understand your opponents instead of mischaracterizing them.
Thus far, you have defended your flawed definition of marriage from a moral low ground. Now let’s shift focus to your unrepentant sins. It is, after all, the duty of watchdogs such as Ex-Gay Watch to report and analyze the sins of antigay activists.
You did not merely air a video of subjective religious opinions against homosexuality; that would be defensible under both religious and First Amendment grounds. Instead, you assisted the 24/7 WWJD web site and Google Video in airing a video that is full of deliberate and malicious fabrications: Accusations that you were too lazy to confirm from respected scientific sources. You have chosen, by neglect, to become a pawn of an antigay propagandist, Paul Cameron, and you stand by a video that even Exodus won’t touch because of its falsehoods — and because it was created by sexually unethical individuals including one who, we all later learned, was committing the repugnant acts that he falsely accused gays of committing.
Having aired false information about gay people as a class, and having talked over portions of the video that would have revealed the video’s indecency and malice to your audience, you then declined to substantiate any of the video’s other accusations even as you continue to air them. Instead, you disingenuously invited people to fly to Portland, Ore., to discuss your propaganda.
In your time at Ex-Gay Watch, you have not answered numerous important questions by other commenters. You have also resorted to strawman arguments (putting ridiculous messages in the mouths of your opponent).
In short, little of your conduct is in keeping with what Jesus would do. And some of your actions constitute blatant sin.
I appreciate your willingness to engage people on what you (wrongly) assume to be the other side of an issue. Going forward, please directly answer questions and refrain from strawman arguments.
The main issue: is homosexuality a sin or not? I think it is. You don’t. From there, we are in two different camps.
As far as the video goes, the homosexual who was in it expressed his deep regret. I think he was sincere in everything he said. He may have fallen again, but that’s a case of “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” We all stumble in many ways; no one is perfect.
I talked over a part of the video because it was too sexually graphic for minors and those of a pure mind… regarding what happens physically in homosexual sex.
I would like to focus on the issue: “Is homosexuality a sin?” I would like to do a TV show on it. If you can find someone in the Portland area to discuss it, I will set-up a TV show on the topic for discussion. I would also invite an expert from the local ex-gay ministry.
…Bernie
https://fgn.typepad.com/
The objections of XGW to the video “It’s Not Gay” have nothing to do with the video producers’ views on sin. If Dehler had aired the exgay video, “I Do Exist,” we would not be having this discussion.
The objections, as several people have stated, have to do with the video’s sweeping stereotypes and long-discredited “studies” of Paul Cameron, which constituted the bulk of Michael Johnston’s ministry. Many exgay advocates found Johnston’s sham ministry to be embarrassing — like Fred Phelps, driven by anger and prejudice, not love. Upon his ministry’s collapse Johnston was missed by no one except Jerry Falwell and the AFA.
The video’s propaganda is worth addressing (and refuting) online using information from numerous sources (including the Portland Fellowship, but nearly so limited). A one-time, two-way exchange of animated soundbites on a Portland-based webcast or public-access station with an uninformed moderator is of little use to people who are sincerely interested in coping intelligently and compassionately with homosexuality in the church.
Mr. Dehler persists in his refusal to answer the questions that have been addressed to him. And he persists in seeking a televised he-said/she-said package of soundbites instead of an informed and expert online review of all the facts surrounding Michael Johnston, Richard Cohen, the American Family Association, and the “It’s Not Gay” video.
I would like very much to see Mr. Dehler answer questions, engage in direct discussion of the real issues, refrain from strawman argumentation, admit mistakes, and learn from alternative resources such as “I Do Exist” or Jonathan Rauch’s gay-marriage book. I want to believe Mr. Dehler has good intentions, including a Christian desire to love the enemy — not to misrepresent or evade, as he has done thus far.
At the same time, Mr. Dehler needs to move beyond trolling to constructive engagement. Trolling is not permitted at XGW.
Mike says:
“A one-time, two-way exchange of animated soundbites on a Portland-based webcast or public-access station with an uninformed moderator is of little use to people who are sincerely interested in coping intelligently and compassionately with homosexuality in the church.”
What do you mean by sound bites? The show is 50 minutes long. If you can’t put across your message in that time with a guest of an opposing view, the problem isn’t with the show or moderator. I am interested in doing such a show. All of Portland will get to see it, and there will be 6 to 8 re-runs for Washington County. Then I also put it on webcast for the whole world to see. I get about 1000 mp3 downloads per month from my ministry page:
https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247/
I don’t do phone interviews because of technical issues. The guest will have to be in person. I’d think there should be plenty of local in the Portland area.
…Bernie
https://fgn.typepad.com/
Bernie:
“The main issue: is homosexuality a sin or not? I think it is. You don’t. From there, we are in two different camps.”
No, this was not the issue under discussion. The issue was your promoting a misleading video and then making illogical claims about gay marriage. We are most likely never going to agree on whether or not homosexuality is a sin. A cynical person might see this as simply your attempt to change the subject after realizing you can’t defend what you’ve done and said.
“As far as the video goes, the homosexual who was in it expressed his deep regret. I think he was sincere in everything he said.”
Someone who sincerely says something which is not true is still wrong.
“Ultimately, it boils down to “is homosexuality a sin?” If yes, then it should, of course, not be validated, with same-sex marriage for example.”
Some people’s conception of sin is not a legitimate basis for crafting public policy. I think overeating to obesity is a sin. Should we institute government-enforced food rationing?
“If it is not a sin, then they should get full rights as any other person of another race, religion, nationality, gender, etc. Because we think differently on this foundational question, we are in two different camps.”
So, anyone who sins (by whomever’s definition) should not get full rights as any other person? Take God’s name in vain, and you lose the right to vote? Fail to rest on the Sabbath, spend a night in jail? Fine women who cut their hair short?
“I think it is sinful, and there is a better way,,, of reformation.”
That is not the problem we have with ex-gay and anti-gay activists. The two problems we have with ex-gay and anti-gay activists are: almost all of their claims are invariably based on lies, and their attempts to use the government to enforce their own religious views upon us.
“I do believe in hope, and I think it is unloving to validate a lifestyle of homosexuality…”
We do not ask that you “validate” us. We do not require your approval. Simply stop attempting to get the government to enforce your own personal moral views, and stop promoting untrue claims.
“in the same way it would be unloving to not confront an alcoholic with a drinking problem. As drinking is to an abuse of alcohol, homosexuality is an abuse to sexuality.”
You’ve actually said more truth than you probably intended to here. Like drinking, homosexuality can be abused, just as heterosexuality can. However, not all drinking is an intrinsic abuse of alcohol (remember Jesus and the 150 or so gallons of wine He created in His first recorded miracle?) and not all homosexual expression is an intrinsic abuse of sexuality.
Regardless of the likelihood that we will always disagree on these issues, you do not serve God by promoting lies, as you have done and continue to do.
So, according to your interpretation of a mistranslation of a revision of a series of allegories and parables and letters written to and for a culture thousands of years and miles removed from your zeigeist, homosexuality is a sin?
Yeah, that sounds like an air-tight defense for writing civil laws in a secular nation.
Besides which, a “sin” is an action–a violation of religious code, a transgression, etc. Homosexuality on the other hand is not an action, it is a state of being. I’ll say it again: It’s never a sin simply to exist.
“The main issue: is homosexuality a sin or not?”
No. The main issue: is lying a sin or not? I think it is. You don’t. From there, we are in two different camps.
If you didn’t believe that lying was perfectly OK, you wouldn’t promote a video based on well documented lies. End of story.
Also, I don’t think there’s anyone here interested in debating you or anyone else on whether homosexuality is a sin. It just isn’t going to happen so you may want to go to soulforce, they might want to.
Here at XGW we don’t get off on telling others what their belief stucture should be. We choose instead to try to live our lives with integrity the best we can. If those around see it and want to know more, we’re happy to share our faith (whatever it may be). So far, conservative Christianity isn’t getting many takers here. Most folks find the “witness” of conservative Christians to be something that they want to get as far away from as possible, rather than something that draws them in. Deceipt, nastiness, self rightousness, intollerance, and arrogance are not fruits of the spirit and as such don’t have much appeal.
A televised one-hour discussion among various viewpoints really isn’t a bad idea — but there are problems with Mr. Dehler’s proposal:
1. Mr. Dehler has expressed a line of argument that other conservatives rightfully deride as relativism: He asserts that all viewpoints deserve respect, no matter how false they are. As a result, I become suspicious of his judgment in selecting guests with reputations for accuracy.
2. Mr. Dehler misunderstands that there are only two sides to the discussion. As I suggested to another exgay advocate via email last week, there are easily a dozen sides.
3. Mr. Dehler misunderstands that homosexuality=sin is a significant part of the disagreement.
There are people affiliated with XGW and with gay-rights groups who believe some or all homosexual behavior is sinful. And there are moral and religious conservatives who acknowledge that the religious right (including its exgay sub-movement) is awash in unrepentant sin. In short, sin is a concern, but it crosses the lines of division and is not a key source of disagreement.
“Liberals” and “conservatives” are not the source of disagreement either, since neither stereotype exists in the real world, at least insofar as the culture warriors describe “liberals” and “conservatives.”
The real sources of disagreement include: Truthfulness vs strawman argumentation and defamation; the legality and ethics of discrimination; the limits of privacy; competing family and community values; and a refusal by competing religious culture warriors to heed portions of the Bible (and other religious works) that disagree with each faction’s foregone conclusions.
From Critical Thinking Lessons:Appeal to Authority: Not always fallacious, but always something a critical thinker must consider. It is where you are asked to accept something as true based upon the word of an expert (authority). The main question is, “Are they really an expert?” Perhaps they’re not an expert in that field, perhaps they’ve got an ax to grind, or perhaps they are being paid by someone.Subtypes:- Endorsement is a type of appeal to authority where someone puts their “stamp of approval” on an idea, candidate, or product. Often this is a celebrity.- Testimonial is a type of appeal to authority. It is the word of someone who has had an actual experience. Like many of the terms listed here, testimonials are not always fallacious. Often they are used in such a way that they become anecdotal evidence. For instance, ads for weight loss products feature actual people who lost a lot of weight, supposedly using their product. But, how many people didn’t lose weight using it? Could they have lost the weight by other means (more exercise, more vegetables, etc.).- Tradition: Though tradition is often a good thing, saying that something is true simply because it is accepted by tradition is fallacious. It is a type of appeal to authority where the authority is all the people who accepted it through time.Mr. Bernie Dehler isn’t just giving us straw man articles, he’s giving an impenetrable appeal to authority defense of “homosexual behavior = sin,” with all of the appeal to authority subtypes thrown in. God, as Dehler understands God and his message regarding homosexual behavior, is the ultimate authority that isn’t allowed, in Dehler’s mind, to be questioned.No matter the argument, no matter the one of the is being said in slippery slope or straw man defenses, the root of his argument is “homosexual behavior = sin” — an “ultimate” appeal to authority argument becomes the first or second element of begging the question style circular logic argument.There are other authorities. Either APA, Robert Spitzer, competing anecdotal accounts — but since Dehler only recognizes his ultimate authority, and the authorities that agree with people who perceive the ultimate authority the same way Dehler does, I fail to see a point in engaging Dehler in discussion. Nothing is really being discussed but dogma.
Bernie,
I only want you to answer one question from me. That question is this:
Do you stand by the statistical accusations in the video — that is, do you claim the video is truthful in representing the life of gay men and women, or do you acknowledge its deep and serious flaws.
One question, one question only. I dare you to answer it. It can’t be more simple.
Autumn says:
“but since Dehler only recognizes his ultimate authority, and the authorities that agree with people who perceive the ultimate authority the same way Dehler does, I fail to see a point in engaging Dehler in discussion. Nothing is really being discussed but dogma.”
I’m not interested in arguing about, what I consider, to be side issues. I think the meat of the issue with homosexuality is “is it a sin or not?” Everything flows from there, as in a flowchart. I would like to see a discussion amongst Christians as to “if it is a sin or not.” Yes, it’s about dogma… between Christians, analyzing both positions. Everyone has a dogma, anyway, even unbelievers.
Jim says:
“Do you stand by the statistical accusations in the video — that is, do you claim the video is truthful in representing the life of gay men and women, or do you acknowledge its deep and serious flaws.”
I think, on the whole, the video is good. It gives an insider’s opinion. It talks to experts. Almost every expert could be debated. I don’t have time to look into all the details. It’s not the only thing going on in my life. I cover many issues, not just homosexuality. Pro-homosexual groups also put out error-prone productions… do you chase them down also and demand retractions… if you are really as concerned about “truth” as you say?
I’m not aware of a “deep and serious flaw.” I don’t have time to read all the comments here, either. If you have a concern, document it and put it in a post here:
https://fgn.typepad.com/freegoodnews/2006/01/gay_comment.html#comments
If it looks like a serious allegation to me, I’ll look into it. You’ll need to provide some facts. Rather than say Mr. X is a liar, provide a weblink or something for me to follow-up with.
…Bernie
https://fgn.typepad.com/
Jim, I point-blank asked Bernie a few days ago to remove the video link from his site based on the witness and documentation provided by several posters. He side-stepped the question, much as he just did here. Apparently the clear danger we attest to for potential viewers is not worth the effort for Bernie to read the relevant comments here or to do his own simple research to verify serious claims about Michael Johnston and Paul Cameron.
Bernie doesn’t have the time to find out if Paul Cameron is a fraud? Really? It would take all of ten seconds googling. I don’t think Cameron even has any defenders left in the extreme anti-gay community anymore.
Bernie doesn’t think he has any obligation to verify that the witness he’s presenting isn’t false. He’s not concerned about whether bearing false witness is a sin, but is only focused on the sins of others.
Bernie’s focused on one thing: “is homosexuality a sin”. Frankly, I think that discussion is over, everyone is firmly entrenched on their own side, and the only point of his bringing it back up it so scream “you’re a sinner”, in a nice way of course.
That’s the only issue to Bernie and he doesn’t have time for side issues like accuracy, honesty, and integrity.
Sorry, Bernie, you can dedicate your site to “homosexuality is sin” but that’s not our purpose here.
Oh, and just for the record, Bernie, yes we do take gay folks to task when they put out inaccurate or deceiptful information about ex-gay issues.
Because gay people know by now that the right wing anti-gay activists will jump on any inaccuracy made and quote it for decades after the gay community has corrected it (for example the well intended but inaccurate estimation of 10%), gay people vet their information more carefully. That’s probably why we document more examples of anti-gay deception than pro-gay deception.
Or maybe it’s that good Christians are just more comfortable lying.
My only question about this whole thread is this: Why is anyone engaging Mr. Behler in any discussion at all? Clearly he’s convinced (by a widely discredited propaganda film) that glbt people are all flawed (and somehow less human than he is).
As he stated above, he doesn’t take the time to read all the posts here, so he’s not all that interested in enlightening himself.
PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS, it only encourages them.
I am in the process of posting exactly that same information about Paul Cameron. I will be more than happy to post the link when the posting is complete, hopefully in a couples of weeks.
Pro-homosexual groups also put out error-prone productions… do you chase them down also and demand retractions… if you are really as concerned about “truth” as you say?
I most certainly do. Ask anybody here. I have no qualms about calling anybody on their B.S.
It seems if you had any concern for the truth, you’d find a way to do the same. Taking the risk of passing on something that represents demonstrable falsehoods, is the very definition of a “false witness.” Shame, shame.
Timothy wrote: Also, I don’t think there’s anyone here interested in debating you or anyone else on whether homosexuality is a sin. It just isn’t going to happen so you may want to go to soulforce, they might want to.
Actually, Soulforce has a policy of refusing debates, because it is their opinion that our dignity and worth are not up for debate…As they put it in one press release — “For Soulforce, the debate about the worth, dignity, and Spirit evident in the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people is over”.
Bernie:
“I’m not interested in arguing about, what I consider, to be side issues.”
In the first post where you came on here, you made several arguments that were not directly concerned with whether or not homosexuality is a sin. Now, when your dishonesty is laid bare, you change the subject. Truth is not a side issue, Bernie. Not least because if you continue to stand by your position that you are under no obligation to ensure the accuracy of the claims you promote, there is no point in having a serious discussion with you about anything. You cannot have a debate when one side states that honesty is irrelevant.
“If it looks like a serious allegation to me, I’ll look into it. You’ll need to provide some facts. Rather than say Mr. X is a liar, provide a weblink or something for me to follow-up with.”
Very well, I will do some of your work for you:
https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html
From here, I am afraid I must ask you to actually take action to investigate the fraudulent nature of the claims you have promoted by following the web-link and reading the material. If you feel that this is too much trouble or a side issue, then there’s really no point in your continuing to post here. At this point, given your continual lack of concern for the truth of anything you assert, I am not hopeful.
Thanks Christine, that’s an even better point.
The humanity of gay people shouldn’t even be in dispute or argued.
And, as I have stated before: if gay people are excluded from participating in all ordinary and supportive aspects of life because of their sexuality.
It looks like gay people are defending their sexuality and the right to have it excluded as a condition of their freedoms and protections.
But, it’s really their a;ready guaranteed freedoms and humanity they are really defending and no human being should have to argue for it or justify it.
You have your own convictions backward Bernie.
The question isn’t whether or not we or you thinks homosexuality is a sin.
And the question has been settled by the Constitution, as long as you are committed to the conduct of basic good citizenship, it’s obligations and contributions-you get the same protections and access in the law.
This is because, and it’s clear, you can’t be consistent about ‘sin’ and directives towards it.
Religious belief prohibits this consistency.
That’s why the law is to treat everyone equally, and what goes on in their personal lives, has to also be settled personally.
It’s not up to you Bernie, or like minded Christians or other religious people to make the government choose someone else’s life for them based on YOUR choice of religious life.
I told you all this before. And you’re ignoring what we’re saying to you. Which is what makes you a tiresome presence concerning this discussion.
Do you understand that Bernie?
Mr. Bernie Dehler: Here’s an authoritative view you aren’t considering: John Boswell reconstructs the minds of ancient people in his books (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe). One of the perspectives he offers is an understanding of how ancient people in Rome, Greece, Europe and the Jewish states viewed sexuality. Homosexuality, hermaphrodism and transgender were, to the ancient mind inter-related and merely degrees of a spectrum. The idea that the mind resides in, but is separate from the body is a very recent concept that fortunately is disproving itself. Ancient people would view an effeminate personality to be the “nature” of an individual in the same way as they would view the “nature” of a mixed genital body, (intersex). The language regarding the intersexual, transgender and homosexual people is frequently interchangeable in ancient cultures. All such people also fall under the common catch words for Eunuch. In our age we think of a eunuch as a man whose testicles have been removed. In the ancient world the term and the concept included anyone who did not or could not use sex for reproduction. This included the thousands of Eunuchs surgically altered as servants and slaves, as well as homosexual, intersexual, and transgender people. In ancient Judaism no one incapable of reproduction could be considered ritually pure and was denied access to the temple, whether for biological or behavioral reasons — they did not perceive these as mutually exclusive. Scriptures regarding eunuchs: – For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him. (Isaiah 59:4-8) – For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb; and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19:12) John Boswell found ceremonies for the celebration of same sex unions as early as the 3rd century. For 1500 years the Christian church consecrated gay unions. The church disdained heterosexual marriage because it was considered a business transaction of women used as chattel for the purposes of property and lineage. Christianity valued love above all things and society did not include love in marriage. Marriage did not become a sacrament until the 13th century, and then many of the ceremonies include speeches entreating heterosexual couples to pattern their love after the famous gay couple who were martyred for Christendom: Serge and Bacchus. I’m not stating that what Boswell has stated should be held as the “true” interpretation of the Bible, nor am I stating that the historical contest he cites is accurate — but I am stating that he holds an alternate set of views of the Bible and history, and that he is also an authority that can be appealed to regarding God’s and Christianity’s view of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersexual people. In other words, there are perspectives in Christendom that imply Christ and historical Christendom so not agree with the perspective that “homosexual behavior = sin.” Until the arguments you present come from a perspective that indicates that you’ve read and understand these other Christian perspectives, and then present (in a scholarly manner) answers the whole of these, then one can easily dismiss the arguments you present as the one-sided perspectives of a dogmatist. So now, there is an alternative Christian viewpoint on your “sin” question. And by the way, that’s not even taking on the larger leap of asking whether a specific brand of Christian dogma should be embraced as the basis for American Civil law regarding LGBTQI people when 1.) other non-Christian authorities one can appeal to have indicated that recognizing monogamous LGBTQI relationships has societal and taxation benefits, and 2.) other secular authorities one can appeal to have indicated that monogamous LGBTQI couples are psychologically equal and effective in parenting children as monogamous heterosexual couples. Please do some homework — reading the source books instead of commentaries by your peers — before giving us any more “homosexual behavior = sin” arguments. Then be prepared to explain why civil law should reflect your religion-based viewpoint. This is my last post responding to you in any way, shape, or form until you educate yourself at least somewhat.
Bernie, assuming for the sake of argument your take on religion is correct, it is still no business of yours to control how others live, that is between them and YOUR god. I’ve heard many Christians like you say god gave people free will otherwise it means he has created people knowing they will make choices he will torture them for an eternity for (one very sadistic god).
I’m assuming you are one of those people Bernie who believe god gave people free will. If so, you must recognize that we have free will to judge for ourselves whether or not your bible says loving supportive monogamous same sex relationships are a sin. And many reasonable Christians say they are not a sin, they are good for the individuals involved and good for society. If we are wrong that will be between us and YOUR god. You have no say in it and even by your own religion its unbelievably arrogant of you to say you do.
Skemono, this was a profound summation of my feelings I don’t think I could have said:
“So, according to your interpretation of a mistranslation of a revision of a series of allegories and parables and letters written to and for a culture thousands of years and miles removed from your zeigeist, homosexuality is a sin?
Yeah, that sounds like an air-tight defense for writing civil laws in a secular nation.”
Bernie the trouble with doing a TV show with you is that there is no reason to expect your behaviour there to be any better than your behaviour here. The foundation of society and an honest search for truth is a sincere one for one trade of questions and answers. You’ve demonstrated again and again that you can’t be trusted to be honest and forthcoming. Honest people don’t lie and dance around a serial discussion of the issues and honest people can’t compete with someone who is well practiced at so doing. The real issue is self determination – since when do you get to decide for others and YOUR god what a sin is according to your bible? The bible is silent on marriage of supportive loving monogamous same sex attracted people.
Ya know what gang?
I think Bernie is hearing his own voice in his head telling him…’I AM God’.
Bernie, you’re only a man. And we only have MEN’S words to take to create a just and civil society.
We can only TRUST that other people will see the humanity in us first, and decide what offense to take from another’s uncivil behavior later on.
Gay people, by just being gay…commit no offense to the well being of another human being.
You know what builds a truly great society, Bernie?
Not religion all the time.
It’s hope and empathy, Bernie.
And people of faith are supposed to be committed to those two factors as well.
But seriously Bernie, will you please be honest.
YOu want gay people to have faith and trust IN YOU.
You want to be the custodian of what gay people do with their lives.
The problem is Bernie, that takes away your OWN trust in God.
You have NO faith that gay people and their lives among us, is not necessary for you to control or be fearful of.
You could bear witness to the achievements and compassion of gay people everyday-these are gifts from Creation that we have fellow men who are this way, despite being treated like our worst enemy, Bernie.
As if they weren’t our very own siblings, and parents, and friends and neighbors and colleagues.
Your faith isn’t DEEP ENOUGH to trust that Creation placed such a group among us heterosexuals strategically and characteristically, that defies narrow and cruel stereotype?
All over this big world, gays and lesbians are defining themselves, and who they really are. Instead of letting YOU and your ilk do it, Bernie.
And the Bible or anything else that’s contradictory to your beliefs and wishes and wants.
Sins, or what you’d like to make of them, seem to be more of a euphemism for ‘inferiority’ in your belief.
Homosexuals are made to feel that there is a deference to God, rather than YOU and your control, Bernie.
Loving gays away from homosexuality you’d like to call it?
Hmm….
Well, if this world were kinder, less cruel and brutal to gay people…you wouldn’t be such an attractive lure now would you Bernie?
Addicts and alcoholics and such tend to be cruel to those around them.
But you can’t say that homosexuality alters a gay person into being that way to straight people, now can you Bernie?
Doesn’t that make you wonder why a gay person would ‘choose’ to be controlled by you Bernie, when self determination is in the DNA of every man, woman and child of God?
Why do you think Creation put that in us, Bernie?
To MAKE YOU LEARN about natural distinctions that create us simply different, rather than distinctions that make us inflict pain?
It’s not natural for one human being to determine another’s identity FOR them. Claim superiority from a natural feature no more chosen than the other chose his.
You picked up and chose what you think is your license to govern and control gay people.
The Bible.
That’s not your license for anyone but YOURSELF.
Now, if you really trusted in what Creation CONTINUES to tell you outside of that book, then you’d LISTEN to your gay brothers and sisters Creation keeps bringing you without end.
Neverending and everywhere…thank God.
Autumn, thank you for the research. Very compelling.
Randi, Regan, Boo, etc., thanks for the passion and the perspective.
I think it may be time again for one of my favorite quotes by Anne Lamott:
“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image, when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
No, thank YOU Tim!
I love Anne Lamott!
And she’s so right.
Thank you Autumn for your excellent additions to this dialog.
Bernie, I have a concern that I hope you will address. It is my firm conclusion that belief in Biblical innerancy or inspiration is a mental illness. I find that those who suffer from this mental deficiency and impairment are truly deeply wounded and suffering people.
So, my question to you is this: do you support public policies that would prevent children from growing up in the care of those who suffer from Bible addiction? Shouldn’t children be taken away from homes where the ‘Magical Bible’is regarded as authoritative? What is your position on this vital issue? Please respond.
Yes, I do regard lying, or in Bibleese ‘bearing false witness’ as a major sin. One which our boy Bernie seems prone to. How does eternity in the ‘lake of liquid fire’ sound to you?
DaleA (Dale Nelson, recently of Southern California),
Judging from your repeated projection of mental illness onto others, it is my firm conclusion that you suffer from the illness that you describe.
The Internet is not an appropriate location for people — whatever their opinions on exgays — to work out their mental instabilities. Though admittedly, far too many web sites permit that to happen.
I have appreciated your insight into the dark magic practiced by some Christian fundamentalists. Nevertheless, your posting privileges have been revoked. I wish you well in seeking professional treatment for your issues.
Timothy Kincaid said:Autumn, thank you for the research. Very compelling.You’re very welcome.By the way, another source on this perspective is John J. McNeill’s Freedom, Glorious Freedom: The Spiritual Journey to the Fullness of Life for Gays, Lesbians, and Everybody Else. John McNeill stated in the text “Gay and lesbian Christians should be aware that in requesting the right to a rite of covenantal union in the Church, we are only reclaiming what is an ancient tradition in the Church.”And being an m2f transsexual myself, please let me remind folk that intersexual and transgender people are included in this debate because we were commonly seen as “cousins” to LGB folk. Immigration is an example of this, with The Status Of Transsexuals Under US Immigration Law being an article that addresses the how DOMA is being a tool used to equate marriages where one of the two parties is a heterosexual transsexual with those marriages involving same-sex couples. Frankly, a lot of religious right organizations consider transgender issues key “homosexual” issues — in their perception of the “Homosexual Agenda.”
I interviewed Jason Thompson (Dir. of an exgay ministry) last Wed. You can watch the free webcast here:
https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247/
…Bernie
*** Newsflash ***Interviewer Bernie Dehler declares:”I would buy Florida swamp-land if the agent ran an ex-gay ministry.”*** End ***Well Bernie — we see you didn’t bother asking the questions you said you would. Jason didn’t approve of them hey? We still don’t know what’s happened to their “fallen” Phil Hobizal…
And that sort of patsy question from Bernie, and a not-answer from Jason fairly well sums up a very wasted 50 min. Gays can be cured, because God can do anything.Of course, Bernie didn’t bother asking a simple question about how many gay men or women had been turned straight by Portland Fellowship; let alone what ratio this represented. Nope: anyone can be cured, because God hates homosexuality and God can do anything. That’s about the depth of Jason’s “evidence”.The response about John Paulk, though, took the cake.Apparently the problem isn’t that John Paulk had gone on national televison, interviews, a series of print ads, Love Won Out etc etc etc and stone cold declared himself to be cured of homosexuality. The problem isn’t that only a few months before he was caught in a gay bar he was writing up James Dobson monthly letter. The problem isn’t that he actually went to the bar more than once. It isn’t that he denied being there, and then said he was but it was only to use the toilet. Paulk lied to the Exodus Board. He lied to Focus on the Family. He had been a notorious liar all his life.No. The real issue for Jason is… we didn’t allow someone to face “failure and diffiulties and weaknesses”. There’s no Paulk issue, apparently, the problem is with us; and our problem is that we’re hypocrits because we’ve all failed before too.Perhaps.But I’ve never been on the cover of Newsweek and LIED TO THE WORLD.I’ve never claimed to have changed my sexuality, even though I knew I had not.I haven’t minced around being taken on trust by a bunch of naive people who hoped that my lies were the truth, and watched as those lies were then used to beat people over the head and used to justify criminal laws.Taken on trust, when you should not be. QED the Bernie and Jason duet.It was an ad for Portland Fellowship. Bernie is a shrill.Bernie also doesn’t care if he spreads lies.
Actually, Bernie is a shill. Though, of course, he may also be shrill. 🙂
And, of course, this is all why I refuse to participate with Bernie. He has no desire for honesty – he’s only out to advocate for a cause. And that cause is to make my life as difficult as he can, because his god believes in the destruction of those with whom Bernie disagrees. I’m not sure who Bernie’s god is, but I suspect he worships the same god as Osama Ben Ladin.
Yeah, well typos — how about a shrill shill?And that was Bernie’s third strike, by my count. And I’m no longer going to bother.
He’s still a shrill shill.
🙂
Hi Grantdale, who said:
“Bernie is a shrill.” (meaning shill)
You should examine yourself and see why you resort to name-calling. I talk to everyone respectfully. Why can’t you? Can’t you tolerate other viewpoints? If you can’t, that’s the definition of a bigot.
I asked Jason (on TV) the best questions I could from your pro-gay camp. I liked his answers. You didn’t. It’s immature to resort to name-calling at that point.
Give me someone from the Portland area from your camp to interview, and I will, regarding homosexuality & religion, with Jason. I’d love to see the dialogue, between respectful parties.
I’m very proud of Jason. He made it clear that he did struggle with homosexuality and overcame it with the power of God.
…Bernie
Oh god, you again.Actually Bernie, you stated you would ask about Phil Hobizal. And you failed to. Why? Too embarrassing for Jason?Shill, of course, has a precise meaning. It’s a person who flogs a worthless product. You are doing that, deliberately or simply because you are easily fooled. We listened to the entire interview, and took notes. Our opinion of you is based on that interview, and what else you said here.You may well “like” Jason. Good, have him around for dinner. But he was not gay. Never was. He has not changed. He slipped right over any issue about changing sexual orientation and you permitted him to do that.I’m reluctant to call you a poor excuse for a journalist, so we’ve settled on shill. That means we think you are fully aware of what you are promoting. (Of course, we’ll be content to deem you ignorant if you claim ignorance.)And as for name calling… need we remind you how YOU have described gay men and women in the past? Your quotes from Paul Cameron? Your acceptance, without any testing, of any rubbish from exgay people?And no — we do not tolerate the viewpoints of bigots. We are not bigots — if you had bothered to do a quick check, or even ask us, you would know that we have personal friends who have lived as gay and straight at various times of their life. We don’t hate them, in fact we’ve welcomed them and their varied partners into our home without hesitation. And, of course, most of our dearest friends and strongest supporters are and always have been STRAIGHT. And they include our families.Name someone gay you can say all that about?
We’ll also add, for Bernie’s benefit though we doubt he’ll take the learning opportunity, that a bigot is someone who assumes too much:”Black people are really good at sport” and the parallel KKK version “Black people are too stupid to learn maths””Jews are really good at business” and ditto the “Jews are greedy money grabbers”Nobody, least of all us, is preventing Jason, as example, from doing anything he feels like. We don’t want him declared anything. We don’t want his personal relationships to be illegal or degraded. We haven’t turned up and asked for the law to declare these people perverts or dangers. He is free to live as he wishes, and we have no problem with anyone being one half of a heterosexual couple.We do have a problem with people, like Jason, and Bernie, who lie about ourselves.Do these people actually think we could be bigots toward our friends and family that we get along so well with???Morons.
Give me someone from the Portland area from your camp to interview, and I will, regarding homosexuality & religion, with Jason. I’d love to see the dialogue, between respectful parties.
Does it seem to anyone else by the number of times he has said this that Bernie is perhaps just looking to pimp some of us out as material for his television show? Seems almost “Springeresque” to me, whip up emotions then put them on TV. And why must all questions be directed to this blog?
And Bernie, you have no idea how wrong you are by calling grantdale a bigot. You really should apologize to them for that comment. People here have actually been quite patient with you considering your unwillingness to answer direct questions or do basic follow-up on claims of fact in that which you promote. What good is airing information which you don’t even know to be true? Do you also not have time to research scripture or are you just taking other people’s word for that as well?
I visited your blog through one of the many links you have posted here and realized that it is not just homosexuality which you shortchange with sloppy “journalism”. Since XGW is not about those other things I will refrain but let me just say that you slander some really great men of God and, at least in the case of Stanley, you obviously have no idea how hard the man works. I did notice that you highly praise FOTF and Coral Ridge – little surprise there.
What really struck me was this quote from you:
Personally, I believe that anyone can be gay, if they let their mind go there. I don’t think it’s something you are born into. However, once you practice it, it is difficult to get free of, just as any sin is. For example, take a murderer. Once they murder, something happens in their brain, and they do more murders, more gruesome than the first. They can be reformed, but it’s very difficult.
I’m sorry Bernie, you seriously need to re-evaluate your life. You not only appear to be a shill on the subject of homosexuality, but on just about everything you choose to write about. As a Christian, and a fairly conservative one, what you are doing both hurts and disgusts me. As a gay man, you are offensive to me.
And if you honestly believe that “anyone can be gay”, well that’s a very interesting tell about what’s going on inside Bernie Dehler.
David Roberts