I posted yesterday about a Southern Poverty Law Center article, titled Straight Like Me, by Casey Sanchez, which blasted the ex-gay movement. In my post, I note several inaccurate reports. In this post, I provide a brief email interview with Michael Brown, president of the FIRE School of Ministry, who was named in a companion piece, Former Ex-gay Minister Speaks Out. I emailed Dr. Brown with some questions about these statements and he was very kind to respond quickly.
Throckmorton: In a recent SPLC article, you are referred to as giving a keynote at the latest Exodus Conference. This subject of this article asserts that you believe the Old Testament law should be followed regarding homosexuals. Is this your belief?
Brown: Absolutely not! I am not and have never been a reconstructionist or theonomist, and if we were to put practicing homosexuals to death, we would also have to put Sabbath breakers to death, among many others.
Throckmorton: Furthermore, in that same article, you were paraphrased as saying in that same Exodus speech that you encouraged the audience to “give up their lives” in the fight against homosexuality.
Brown: Out of context. What I did say was that JESUS was worth living for and dying for, and I often quote Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to illustrate what Jesus meant when he said that if we try to save our lives we lose them but if we lose our lives for him and the gospel, we find them. King said, “A man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is right; a man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice; a man dies when he refuses to take a stand for that which is true.” I was encouraging those fighting unwanted SSA in their own lives to be strong in the Lord and to give themselves unconditionally to His service, then talking about the threat to our freedoms coming through an activist gay agenda as a wake up call.
Throckmorton: Could you react to the following excerpt from the SPLC article: “When you have a keynote speaker like Michael Brown, to me that’s unacceptable. It’s preaching a message of Christians not just simply opposing gay civil rights and believing a spiritual revival is necessary for this country, but actually calling on Christians to lay down their lives in a spiritual revolution to set up civil laws based on one extreme interpretation of biblical laws from the Old Testament [that calls for the death penalty for homosexuals]. It’s Christian Reconstructionism [a doctrine that calls for imposing harsh Old Testament laws on civil society], Christian dominionism. It’s abhorrent, and it’s dangerous, not just for LGBT people but for our entire society. Because if civil laws are based on [Brown]‘s interpretation of the Bible, it’s not going to be a democratic society.”
Brown: Well, as a Jewish believer in Jesus and a frontline apologist, I have been accused of many things, but I don’t think I’ve been accused of calling on people to sacrifice our lives to set up OT law! I can actually send you my power point notes from the message or get Exodus to send you the message itself. I have no clue how such a claim could be made based on my message, which completely contradicts the tone and content of my preaching. Interestingly, since the Exodus conference, I have been invited to become a regular conference speaker with Love Won Out, which is hardly known for calling for the death penalty for homosexual practice.
I was also provided with this link [Straight Like Me] in which the following was written about me: “Brown is “a millennial Jew who once described the red T-shirts worn by his ministry students at a gay rights march counter-demonstration as ‘the shed blood of Christ flowing toward the gates of hell.’” I have no idea if anyone ever said that, but it certainly was not me. Also, our red-shirted students were not part of a counter-demonstration but rather of a compassionate, one-on-one outreach during the city’s gay pride event in 2005.
I intend to send the links to the this and the other post about the SPLC article for their reaction which, if I get one, I will post.
UPDATE: Michael Brown sent a link which provides proper attribution for the quote about the red shirts and the gay pride parade. Flip Benham, head of Operation Save America wrote that in this website newsletter.
Jag,
“While you will certainly find me continuing to be active in the Boards of Directors, civil rights groups, lobbying organizations, and fundraisers to help make us all equal in the eyes of man as exists under God, I no longer find it beneficial to “make a case” here for others of my love or my faith. I have both, and for this I consider myself more than fortunate, and am eternally grateful – waiting patiently for the day when others see what I have known to be true all along.”
You will be missed terribly! Your kindness, patience and intelligent words for those who would support your family and even for those who would like to not see it exist, or who work against it, were welcome.
I sometimes wonder if we would all be better off following your example by becoming more active in our respective groups than continuing to talk here.
God bless and keep you Jag!!!!!!
jag – i second jayhuck. We don’t agree on a lot but I appreciate your reasoned comments and will miss your voice in the dialogue.
Welcome back anytime.
Jayhuck–
Please refer to the topic before you attempt to define for Dr. Brown what “we’re talking about”. I’m not trying to be snarky but Dr. Brown has only been answering challenges and questions. From his heart…from what he believes. And, the topic is, after all, “Dr. Brown responds…” not “equal access” as you suggest.
(LOL! I’m going to have to re-read the thread. I didn’t think we overtly discussed specific political issues much at all.)
You say in one sentence that no one is trying to deny him the right to interpret the Bible as he does…or to live or preach as he sees fit. But, almost immediately you admonish “you shouldn’t try and force your beliefs onto those who do not agree with you through legislation.” Live and preach as you see fit but, if you see fit to speak politically, don’t go there. Wouldn’t you feel it demeaning if I made that challenge to you? Wouldn’t you feel I was putting a constraint on your freedom and responsibility?
Jayhuck, no one is trying to deny your right to view homosexuality as you do before God. Or to live and blog as you see fit. What we’re saying is that a lot of people don’t agree with your interpretation, both Christians and non, and you shouldn’t try and force your beliefs onto those who do not agree with you through legislation. Don’t worry! I’d never suggest such a thing. The freedom to live and act based on your conscience is a fundamental freedom in America.
It’s a freedom I don’t withhold from Dr. Brown, either.
This forum, itself, is merely a discussion blog. Where people with differing viewpoints can discuss. Dr. Brown came here by invitation of the blog owner and was willing to engage in discussion. His tone was civil; he spoke the truth as he sees it (which was uncomfortable for many…but isn’t it the rule the rest of us are operating by…to ‘tell it like it is’, as it were?)
Your final comment that its “not how you see the Bible that we’re discussing” was simply unfair. Wasn’t he responding to Emproph(Patrick) who brought the Bible examples to the table?
Karaoke calling. 2 new practice/performance discs just arrived. Would you forgive me if I cut my blog time down to 1/2 hour a week?
Eddy,
Speaking about politics is one thing Eddy, trying to force your beliefs on others through legislation is entirely another. I’m not sure how to make this any clearer. Can he do it, yes. Should he??? I don’t believe so! I don’t try and discriminate against those law-abiding, tax paying citizens I don’t agree with by trying to pass legislation that would prevent them from having the same rights I enjoy.
Eddy,
Dr. Brown is taking his interpretation of the Bible, and his own personal religious beliefs, and is suggesting by “speaking politically” as you put it that EVERYONE should have to live by it. I find that terribly wrong.
I view politics as a pendulum. I believe it needs to swing both to the right and to the left to find a healthy balance. We need the ultra-conservatives to balance the ultra-liberals. Most people aren’t persuaded to go ‘ultra’ in either direction. If they’re thinking people, they hear, they digest and then they act. But, in my world at least, I want voices from both sides–and, occasionally, I want more radical voices from both sides. It’s how I learn.
I may have said this earlier but many of the comments seem pretty close to ‘censorship’ and that’s been one of my hot-buttons since my teenage Underground Newspaper days. In the pendulum scenario, everybody says their peace, does their thing and, somehow, something not too far from center emerges. (Maybe that’s where my problem lies…in not wanting to move too far from center.)
Obsessive question: Is it “says their peace” or “says their piece”? Anyone?
Jayhuck,
No sarcasm intended here at all, but honestly, I don’t follow what you’re saying. You wrote to Eddy: “Dr. Brown is taking his interpretation of the Bible, and his own personal religious beliefs, and is suggesting by ‘speaking politically’ as you put it that EVERYONE should have to live by it. I find that terribly wrong.”
What is wrong with exercising my rights as an American citizen to vote for candidates of my choosing and to support legislation of my choosing and to make those decisions based on my moral and spiritual and social convictions, many of which are based on the Scriptures?
We all have opinions about abortion, illegal immigration, tax reform, the war in Iraq, education, family, same-sex issues, etc., and we go about forming our opinions in many different ways, some of which include biblical and spiritual reflection. And then we vote or act according to our consciences as American citizens. Don’t you do the same?
I did not vote for Bill Clinton as president and I did not like many of the things he stood for. Nonetheless, he was my president because of our democracy, just as George Bush is our president today, depsite many people not liking him.
So, once again, I really don’t follow what you’re talking about here at all, and I would appreciate it if you would explain what is so “terribly wrong” with my position.
Also please note that I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread that I have very little political involvement — as stated previously, well less than 1% of my time and energies are exerted in that direction — so I’m not even sure why that receives such a focus here. Most of the relevant “battles” I’m involved with have to do with getting a certain message out, sometimes an activist message that differs from the message of the GLBT activists — but in doing so, both sides are merely exercising our constitutional rights.
I look forward to your response.
Michael
Eddy,
I may have said this earlier but many of the comments seem pretty close to ‘censorship’ and that’s been one of my hot-buttons since my teenage Underground Newspaper days. In the pendulum scenario, everybody says their peace, does their thing and, somehow, something not too far from center emerges. (Maybe that’s where my problem lies…in not wanting to move too far from center.)
Once again, I agree with you. This IS becoming a habit!
Dr. Brown,
We all have opinions about abortion, illegal immigration, tax reform, the war in Iraq, education, family, same-sex issues, etc., and we go about forming our opinions in many different ways, some of which include biblical and spiritual reflection. And then we vote or act according to our consciences as American citizens. Don’t you do the same?
What it boils down to for me is not discriminating against other PEOPLE based on my personal religious views.
Also,
This is one of my absolute favorites.
A couple of quotes:
This is the portion I love best about this essay:
The Epistle of Thomas to the Creationists
“Obsessive question: Is it “says their peace” or “says their piece”? Anyone?”
—
That’s been bugging me for years. Since you said that I finally Googled it.
From what I gather, it’s piece and not peace. Though once you’ve said your piece, one could technically say they’ve said their “peace.” So it seems that the confusion is warranted.
30 some thousand results for “said my peace”
70 some thousand results for “said my piece”
Enclosed in one of the links was this:
Whatever. I’ve Googled my piece.
Ok, let’s try it like this,
Just throwing it out here for all of us to consider:
http://elroy.net/ehr/fighttheright.html
Now, for the record, I’m an addict too. But I make it a point not to confuse thinking that I’m right, with actually being right. To actually be right requires the willingness to recognize being wrong.
What I am seeing in this conversation (in regard to this thread), is that it is a sin to even consider being wrong, and thus, to consider even being in need of further understanding.
When I say that I am open, what I mean is that I am willing to be wrong.
So it’s not just the addiction to being right that we’re talking about here, it’s also the unwillingness to be wrong.
It’s hard being wrong, but to consider as much to be a sin on top of it, is to consider learning itself to be sinful.
Re: Piece and Peace. Thank you. I’m learning not to be fully persuaded by the numbers though. LOL! The 70,000 could be mostly ‘slackers’ who never cared much for linguistic accuracy in the first place. One picks up the bad use from the other and it spreads. I enjoy light books on the history of expressions. Looks like it’s time to shop for another.
Re: Your other two posts.
Peace. Out. (That one is spelled p-e-a-c-e.)
Priceless! You’ve demonstrated my points beautifully. I hope that Ann and Dr. Brown also see them as a part of the larger telling picture of this thread.
I hope that Ann and Dr. Brown also see them as a part of the larger telling picture of this thread
Eddy,
What is it that you want me to see and in what posts and what is the larger telling picture of the thread?
Every tactic in the book. Stonewalling, side-tracking, accusations, insinuations, ganging up, mind-reading, projecting, prejudging, misjudging, baiting and then, finally, Emproph’s two outrageous posts.
Any rational reader realizes that Emproph’s quotes are inflammatory rhetoric. Picture a ‘preacher’ from the opposite side of the pendulum than Dr. Brown. So, the words are charged…intentionally. The only real connection those words have to any of us is that we seem to fit the label ‘conservative’…the writers are ranting against ‘conservatives’. Any rational reader realizes that they are ranting against a caricature, against an image.
A rational reader will read those insinuations about our character and they’ll go up and read what’s been said in this thread. And there’s not a shred of Emproph’s charges that will make any sense.
So, I was kinda saying “Let it roll, he’s trying to bait us”. Blog guidelines suggest that sometimes the best thing to do is not respond at all.
Stay real!
I debated letting those posts remain but allowed them through in part because I think Emproph was trying to make a point that is reasonable enough. He thinks he is right (he’s an addict) and others think they are right (they’re addicts). In my opinion, the metaphor to addiction trivializes both addiction and strongly held conviction and is thus off the mark.
Now, this thread has been interesting but it may be about up. Let me invite all those who have been commenting to take up comments on the other threads. I want to thank Michael Brown for spending lots of time here as a new reader and commenter. Thanks to all commenters for a mostly respectful and enlightening thread.
Are there other thoughts, Michael, that you want to close with?
Eddy,
Thanks for responding – I understand now. Thank you for bringing it to my attention because I would not have read it otherwise. I think you covered everything very well in how you explained and clarified the two posts he wrote. I agree with you.
I did not read the original article that began this thread and have been responding only to just the posts. I found Dr. Brown to be so respectful, fair, intelligent, and patient in his responses and those communications are what I know about him. I really appreciated what he wrote and perhaps it is the way I chose to interpret it that made me see it differently from others who did not agree with him. I plan to look at his website when I have more time and hope he checks in often as time permits. My posts were very personal in nature and did not reflect what I felt others should feel or do in their own lives. I hope that was clear on #80124 and 80132. I think Jag said it best when she wrote that she didn’t have to agree with someone to deeply respect them and I feel the same way.
Jayhuck,
I too don’t discriminate against people, but I do make moral decisions that affect other people, as do you. Witness the recent blog here about the (non-identical) twins who were married in the UK after being separated all their lives and unaware of the other’s existence. They were required to separate by the law, which to many could seem like an act of discrimination. So, I appreciate your thoughts but do not ultimately believe it’s as simple as you make it seem.
To me, the ultimate act of discrimination is to destroy a child in her mother’s womb, yet there are surely some posters here who would argue for the woman’s right to choose and not be disriminated against. So, once again, it’s not that simple.
In any case, as I have stated many times before here (and as I’m sure we all agree), we must all do our best to honor God in this life and then give a final accounting to Him. May He help me and you and each of us to live in such a way that gains his approval.
Blessings and grace,
Michael
#81034 – Amen
Warren,
Yes, I concur in terms of this thread winding down, which was also a scheduling inevitably on my end as well. Thanks so much for the opportunity to participate, and I hope my comments have been of value to some.
You ask for some closing thoughts on my end, and here are a few.
I have no comments no Patrick’s final posts; I think they speak for themselves, while Eddy’s relevant comments are germane.
For my part, I always seek to listen and learn as well to contribute in a meaningful way when engaging in serious dialogue, so I have certainly come away the better for the exchange. In all candor, however, what has been disappointing to me (after several decades of debates and dialogues with many others) is the degree of mistrust, suspicion, mind-reading, etc., directed towards me. At times it was either mildly frustrating or sadly amusing to raise a point in all sincerity only to find my motives questioned or, most recently, to be accused of a cheap debating trick or the like. In fact, it looks like we will have to wait for another time for the whole important discussion of whether one can be sure that he or she is right, or what the consequences of being wrong would mean, or how we should each proceed based on the alleged certainty or uncertainty of our knowledge, or how we should treat our “opponents” based on these same questions. I do plan, however, to raise some of these very issues in my upcoming lecture series in Charlotte (Feb. 11-15), God willing, and at that point, others will see why I felt it was so important to flesh these things out.
On a lighter note, however, I became used to exchanges such as this in this thread: Me: “I appreciate your question and I take it seriously, but I can only say that after years of careful reflection on the issue, my conclusions are firm.” My opponent: “You close-minded bigot! How dare you claim to be right! Religious fanatics like you are always wrong!” To me, it was a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black, and Eddy’s recent note about all the tactics used against me were, from my perception, quite accurate. (At this point I can see the expected “Don’t make yourself into a martyr” post coming my way, but if I understand you correctly, we’re coming to an end here; plus, I never fashioned myself the victim in this thread, just one person trying to be fair to many serious posters.)
Having said this, here’s what may surprise Timothy and Patrick and Jayhuck and David and others: The biggest thing I take away here is the fact that without long term, personal relationships, or, at the least, without more face to face, offline dialogue, it will be difficult for me to be trusted by these men and women. Moreover, I don’t entirely blame them for that, given their worldview, given their understanding of the “hostile” position I take, given the fact that to them, I am undermining their humanity, their civil rights, indeed, their very relationship with God, even claiming to stand in God’s place (in their eyes). Thankfully, through the years, I have built up some very solid relationships with rabbis and Jewish “counter-missionaries,” people who still oppose what I stand for but count me as a friend (and I the same with them) after being quite antagonistic to me in the past, now with genuine respect and love on both sides of the divide. I hope the same thing will happen here, and in that spirit, I make this closing comment.
It is with care and concern before the Lord that I take any of the stands that I take, and I never do so without much introspection and, often, genuine pain, not wanting to hurt the GLBT community more than it has been hurt, not wanting to reflect my heart rather than God’s heart, not wanting to be a poor witness of Jesus, not wanting to reject those that He is affirming, and always wanting to be sensitive to the voice of the Spirit, the voice of conscience, and the voice of the disenfranchised. And while awaiting the ultimate day of accounting before God’s throne, I bring myself before Him (often daily), asking Him to examine my heart, my life, my motives, my responses, my words, my actions, praying for both mercy and forgiveness where I fall short and for courage to stand where His truth requires it, regardless of the cost or consequences. More than that, I cannot do.
With appreciation,
Michael
Michael writes:
In any case, I have a simple question for you, and I appeal to you to answer me directly: Is it possible that I am right in saying that homosexual practice is sinful in God’s sight? I stress the words, IS IT POSSIBLE that I am right in saying this?
Yes, I think homosexual behavior is condemned in the OT and in the NT.
My question to you, Michael, is, why should I see that as a bad thing? The reason I ask this is because I do NOT, under any circumstances, want a god like yours to approve of me. Why would I write such a thing?
Let’s dive back into scripture:
“Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” 1 Sam 15:3
Is it possible that I’m right that your god not only approves of the violent murder of children and infants in some circumstances, but also orders his followers to do it in some circumstances?
Let’s dive back into scripture again (I love the Bible):
“The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” Hos 13:16
Is it possible that I’m right that your god not only approves of forced abortion in some circumstances, but also orders that it be done in some circumstances?
I look forward to your honest responses since I honestly answered your question. I am not merely trying to get under your skin by posting “gotcha!” verses from scripture. I think your god is an evil, malicious god who is not worthy of being worshipped, and I would want him to disapprove of me the same way you don’t want to be in Satan to disapprove of you. I’m serious as a heart attack about this.
James,
Actually, because of time constraints and the winding down of this thread, I’m checking out of this blog for now. Also, my question was specifically for Timothy when it was raised.
However, since you express your seriousness about these issues, please contact me through my website (www.icnministries.org; Contact Us), and I’ll be very happy to refer you to some resources that address the important questions you raise.
Thanks for understanding,
Michael
Michael,
Thank you for responding.
Actually, because of time constraints and the winding down of this thread, I’m checking out of this blog for now. Also, my question was specifically for Timothy when it was raised.
That’s not important now.
However, since you express your seriousness about these issues, please contact me through my website (www.icnministries.org; Contact Us), and I’ll be very happy to refer you to some resources that address the important questions you raise.
I would much rather you answer me here so that everyone can see it. I want you to make a public defense of your faith — one that is not afraid to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I would much rather you answer me here so that everyone can see it. I want you to make a public defense of your faith — one that is not afraid to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
J.James,
What a selfish thing to ask after what he just wrote you. Read the other 400 comments and you will have all the answers you need and want. Do your own work instead of asking someone else to do it.
Ann,
What a selfish thing to ask after what he just wrote you.
You write that as if you had a non-selfish motivation in responding to me.
Read the other 400 comments and you will have all the answers you need and want.
I have read the entire thread. There is no post which answers my questions that I have posed to him (and to you, for that matter). I want him to answer them here and in front of everyone. I don’t understand why you would object to that kind of public defense of the validity of Christianity.
Do your own work instead of asking someone else to do it.
He should not be ashamed to work to defend the Gospel of Jesus Christ and neither should you. I insist that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is false and even evil, and I am ready to explain why in great detail by relying wholly upon the Bible.
If you disagree with anything I’ve written, then I invite you to stand up for your faith. Calling me selfish and implying that I’m lazy does not reflect well upon your witness.
If you disagree with anything I’ve written, then I invite you to stand up for your faith. Calling me selfish and implying that I’m lazy does not reflect well upon your witness.
J. James,
I’m not interested in a dialogue with you – perhaps someone else is. I do not feel like I have the proper qualifications or temperment needed to discuss the things you want to. Dr. Brown has indicated that due to time contraints he is not going to be posting to this thread any further. What is it about that that you do not understand and insist that he do otherwise? That he extended a personal invitation to you was generous and in light of your questions, it might be in your best interest to write him. Your questions are very valid and I hope that you receive all the answers you are looking for – if not now, perhaps in the fullness of time and with maturity. Continually say what you want and what others should be giving you at your request, is immature and not conducive to a meaningful dialogue or the desire to understand another’s point of view.
Ann said in post 81380:
Dr. Brown has indicated that due to time contraints he is not going to be posting to this thread any further.
I don’t see how discussing via e-mail saves a significant amount of time versus posting here.
Ken,
That is how you see it, not Dr. Brown – I believe his request should be respected. He has been more than generous and fair and patient in answering everyone’s posts and did it in a thorough and respectful way. My guess is that if he continues to post here, it leaves open the possiblility that others will again join in and out of his kindness, he will want to repsond. He has indicated that due to time constraints, he cannot do that now. J. James has some very important questions that can be directed to the person he has specifically requested answer them.
Ann
I’m not interested in a dialogue with you
I don’t blame you. You’re in a very bad position. I wouldn’t want to trade spots with you.
Dr. Brown has indicated that due to time contraints he is not going to be posting to this thread any further. What is it about that that you do not understand and insist that he do otherwise?
Michael can speak for himself.
Your questions are very valid and I hope that you receive all the answers you are looking for – if not now, perhaps in the fullness of time and with maturity.
You mistake me for someone who is looking for insight from Michael. Michael has stated on this very forum that he wishes I would vanish and that he yearns for a world in which I do not exist. He doesn’t have my best interest in mind.
Continually say what you want and what others should be giving you at your request, is immature and not conducive to a meaningful dialogue or the desire to understand another’s point of view.
My position is that your religion is false and evil, and I will argue for that position publicly and without compromise. I can’t see why you would call this “meaningful dialogue” from your own point of view. Christians usually view “meaningful dialogue” with non-believers as a conversation in which the non-believer listens and eventually accepts Jesus Christ as his or her personal Lord and Savior. That is certainly not my intention, as I will measure my own success in how lukewarm Michael’s faith is by the time our conversation is done. I will be polite and I will be fair, but make no mistake that Michael has clearly indicated that he longs to see me gone forever and has thus positioned himself squarely as a hostile enemy. Let Michael and I agree to polite debate over the validity of his religion and may the best mind win. Michael is permitted to ask his god for help if he so wishes.
If you would rather take Michael’s place, then by all means do so. (Answer the questions.) Otherwise, bow out of this conversation immediately and stop apologizing for him. He drew first blood, and now he must deal with the consequences.
My position is that your religion is false and evil
J. James,
What is my religion – do you know?
Michael has stated on this very forum that he wishes I would vanish and that he yearns for a world in which I do not exist. He doesn’t have my best interest in mind.
but make no mistake that Michael has clearly indicated that he longs to see me gone forever and has thus positioned himself squarely as a hostile enemy.
J. James,
In the spirit of truthfullness and clarity, please verify the place on this thread where Michael has said this.
If you would rather take Michael’s place, then by all means do so. (Answer the questions.) Otherwise, bow out of this conversation immediately and stop apologizing for him. He drew first blood, and now he must deal with the consequences.
J. James,
Lose the drama and hostility – they are both ineffective and do not lend to your credibility. Michael has invited you to open a personal diaglogue with him – if you want him to specifically answer your questions, do it personally, you don’t need a stage.
Ann,
In comment #73423, Michael wrote:
In a perfect world, there would be no hatred, no war, no rape, no injustice, no greed, no drunkenness, no violence . . . . Perhaps we agree on this. In a perfect world, there would be no sickness, no mental illness, no barren wombs, no infertile males . . . . Perhaps we agree on this too. And in a perfect world, I would be a very different human being than I am!
But a perfect world would be a heterosexual world, with all loving couples able to enter into a lifelong relationship through which they can produce the unique byproduct of that relationship in their biological children.
If you feel hatred in this statement or utter rejection in this statement, I can understand why.
A heterosexual world is a world with no homosexuals, and that quite clearly a prerequisite of Michael’s “perfect world”.
Michael later added in comment #75783 to this by stating:
Obviously, that still doesn’t answer the question from your perspective, one in which you would say you have no desire to change, so let me answer incrementally: Ideally, in this “perfect” world, I would not know what your sexual orientation was, since that would be a private matter.
Clearly that leaves some things unsaid, such as, what would the penalty be for coming out? And does he support sodomy laws? Lots of Christians will take a passive-aggressive stance by saying, “Oh, I love you, I really do” and then “The law is the law!” In other words, they’re content to let the government persecute gays on their behalf, as many States did before the outcome Lawrence v. Texas (which many Christians protested).
But that doesn’t matter now. The fact that Michael has included homosexuality along with the apparent “moral equivalents” of rape and violence as things that wouldn’t exist in his “perfect world” is enough for him to be clearly understood as someone who wishes me ill.
Ann,
Lose the drama and hostility
Your god mandated his people to violently murder children and infants. Is that true or false?
My prediction: you will dodge that question and sink into more invective.
Your god mandated his people to violently murder children and infants. Is that true or false?
J.James,
Like I said, I do not feel qualified to answer any of these very important questions you have. I just don’t have the credentials to answer with the integrity they deserve, nor do I have the personal knowledge. I believe there are many who can answer and Michael is one of them. As to my personal belief, I know the Bible says these things happened. I know nothing more than that, nor would I indulge myself into believing that I know. If God selected me to be the person to understand all of His ways, I do not believe I have the ability to comprehend His reasonings. If all this is too much of an explanation, then I will just say “I am not sure”.
I don’t know if this will mean anything to you but I hope you at least listen to it – just because someone else says something does not mean that it has to become your reality or truth. You will always be at the mercy of another if you allow what they say to affect you the way that this has. Please don’t do that. Ultimately what others say have nothing to do with how you are going to live your life. Be careful who you listen to and how you chose to intrepret what they say. If they do not agree with you initially, that does not mean there cannot be common ground and further discussion. If you continue to be hostile and coercive, then discussion will shut down and you will be remembered for that instead of what you have to say which is important. You do not have to be a bully to capture someone’s attention.
I interpreted Michael’s comments differently than you did. In a perfect world there would not be the challenges that all of us face, however, we do not have that perfect world. As to whether any of us fit into that world, I believe we all do.
Ann said in post 81392
He has been more than generous and fair and patient in answering everyone’s posts and did it in a thorough and respectful way.
Well that may be your impression of Dr. Brown, I (and I suspect a few others) have a very different one.
James,
A (last) quick note to you personally.
I got involved in a specific thread for specific reasons. Our ministry receives hundreds of emails requesting direct answers from me on scores of different subjects, but I’m obviously unable to reply to them personally, and I certainly have no desire to prove to someone that I’m a defender of “the faith” in this setting here.
You now raise some larger, general questions which are outside of the purview of this blog and, more particularly, this thread, hence my suggestion that you contact my ministry and we will refer you to sources that will be of help. If you are that serious about the questions, you will certainly be ready to invest the months and years of studying and researching the materials to which we will refer you. If you have already done so, I don’t expect that a few comments from me will change your views.
So, this is the last you’ll hear from me on this, and the invitation for you to contact our ministry remains. And I would be delighted to have one of my grads speak with you by phone should you want to get into a more in-depth discussion of your questions.
Again, my own schedule does not permit me to help you more than this; otherwise, if you think I should reply to everyone in detail on every blog and thread and in every email, I will gladly put you on the list, in which case I would hope to be able to get back to you about 15-20 years from now, you now being the latest to be added to that list.
Be well,
Michael
Ann,
Like I said, I do not feel qualified to answer any of these very important questions you have.
As they say, the Bible has the answer: 1 Samuel 15:3.
I don’t know if this will mean anything to you but I hope you at least listen to it – just because someone else says something does not mean that it has to become your reality or truth. You will always be at the mercy of another if you allow what they say to affect you the way that this has.
Those condescending words come easily to you because there is nothing that Michael written which could be threatening to you. In short, you are his ideological ally. As you told Michael in comment #73360, “Please be encouraged – you are articulating just fine, even if it is not what others want to hear.” Maybe if Michael had included Christianity along with rape and violence as things that wouldn’t exist in his “perfect world” then you would be able to generate some empathy for my position.
I interpreted Michael’s comments differently than you did. In a perfect world there would not be the challenges that all of us face, however, we do not have that perfect world.
And clearly Michael sees me as a “challenge” that needs to he needs to “face” (and presumably defeat). Fine. I rise to meet his challenge.
Where’s Micheal?
Maybe if Michael had included Christianity along with rape and violence as things that wouldn’t exist in his “perfect world” then you would be able to generate some empathy for my position.
J. James,
Again, I am not sure what religion you are assuming I am – can you clarify that?
My words were not meant to be condescending and I am sorry you chose to interpret them that way. They were meant to be just the opposite.
Well that may be your impression of Dr. Brown, I (and I suspect a few others) have a very different one.
Ken,
It was my impression of Dr. Brown and I was grateful for the opportunity to know of him through these posts. I am aware now that you had a different impression and I respect that.
Its like the Energizer Bunny – it just keeps going and going……..
Ann,
I assumed you were a Christian.
I assumed you were a Christian.
J. James,
Assumptions about other people do not always tell you the truth and, therefore, should not be used, especially when making accusations. When you want to be effective, it is better to present what you have to say with facts rather than assumptions. This usually plays out best by asking the question to verify the answer and then proceeding with the truth. You will be far more credible.
Its like the Energizer Bunny – it just keeps going and going
Jayhuck,
Funny
Since Dr. Brown is no longer posting here and Dr. Throckmorton is winding this thread down, I will be checking out as well.
Ann,
Was my assumption correct or incorrect?
Ann,
Are you christian? I notice you are implying J. James’ assumption was wrong, yet you never actually said he was.
Michael,
Thank you for letting me have the last word.
I certainly have no desire to prove to someone that I’m a defender of “the faith” in this setting here.
I don’t blame you. Your moral position is untenable.
You now raise some larger, general questions which are outside of the purview of this blog and, more particularly, this thread
I completely disagree. The basis for every view you have expressed in this thread and for every view which spawned this thread itself is wholly grounded in the validity of your faith. If your faith is invalid, then every single view you have expressed here is invalid and there would be no discussion at all. In that sense, it is not only entirely inside the purview of this thread, but it is the very essence of this thread.
hence my suggestion that you contact my ministry and we will refer you to sources that will be of help.
I fail to understand why you think I want or need your help. I don’t see you as a teacher, a friend, or a minister. I see you as a vicious enemy who merits no compassion whatsoever.
If you are that serious about the questions, you will certainly be ready to invest the months and years of studying and researching the materials to which we will refer you. If you have already done so, I don’t expect that a few comments from me will change your views.
I fail to understand why you think I’m looking toward you to change my views. I’m not in this for self-improvement. The way that you see gay activists is the way that I see you. You’re not just an anti-gay activist, you’re an anti-me activist. You long for a me-free world.
So, this is the last you’ll hear from me on this, and the invitation for you to contact our ministry remains. And I would be delighted to have one of my grads speak with you by phone should you want to get into a more in-depth discussion of your questions.
I would be delighted to turn any number of your lackeys into lukewarm doubting Thomases, but how does that help me if the act of doing so isn’t public? I completely understand why you want that conversation to be private. It’s obvious that you are in the inferior moral position with no way out. Having to publicly defend the validity of your faith in light of 1 Samuel 15:3 and Hosea 13:16 is the last place I would want to be.
if you think I should reply to everyone in detail on every blog and thread and in every email, I will gladly put you on the list, in which case I would hope to be able to get back to you about 15-20 years from now, you now being the latest to be added to that list.
Fifteen to twenty years seems a little soon for the public debate you never intend to have. Since you’ve so graciously given me the last word, I will gladly take the opportunity to leave the facts out here for all to see:
Michael makes a strong moral stand against homosexuality. Michael thinks that homosexuality is wrong in all cases without exception. However, Michael has to waffle on the issues of baby murder and forced abortion. Michael must concede that those actions are sometimes morally right, even holy, because his god mandated that they be done, and this very same god is Michael’s chosen moral compass.
This is why we should take pride and satisfaction in being hated by Michael’s god. Michael’s god is an evil and malicious god. I don’t want a god like that to approve of me. I would much rather a god like that to despise me.
Be well,
That’s pretty rich. If you had it your way, I would vanish from the world forever.
Warren:
A number of the regulars have left this thread and I honestly don’t think Dr. Brown will have any problems letting J. James have the last word. Please consider closing it for further comments.
I think I’ll cap it off at 450…