Search This Blog

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Reviewing John and Catherine Shore's video for NALT project

My title of this post:

This is one of the poorest explanations of the pro-gay Christian positions that I have ever heard.

Working through the video by John Shore and his wife, Catherine.  It is 12:51 minutes long.  The title is, “My wife and I on why “God condemns homosexuality” is irrational, unbiblical, unfair, and un-Christian.

But first, John hasn’t yet stated what type of intimate sexual behavior is consistent with Scripture, from his perspective as a Christian and thus where that behavior crosses the line into being sinful in his opinion.  He seems to focus on the far ends of the spectrum.  Does he agree that all sex anytime, as Evan Hurst has said, saying sexytime, whatever that actually meant, is biblical?  And is John comfortable saying that he is more than a cultural Christian as Evan Hurst says that Evan is and as Evan says that Dan Savage says that Dan is?

Working through the video. 

·         Being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, transgendered.  However is that about behavior or identity, orientation or attractions? 

·         They don’t define what “a Christian” is. 

·         Full equality, in all areas of life, including in marriage and in the church.  What does that mean? 

·         Define the term, condemn.

·         Define the term, gay people.

·         Catherine is pretty direct, right from the start.  “no-where in the Bible…”  “the Bible does not say…” statements. 

·         So, Catherine doesn’t define the key term that she uses, gay people.  And she doesn’t define the term, condemned.  So, how can she be speaking about what she thinks that God doesn’t do, when she doesn’t even use terms that she has defined?

·         Catherine doesn’t define the term, homosexuals.  So, it makes it easier for her to say God doesn’t condemn homosexuals.  Is she referring to attractions or behavior or identity?  1 minute in. 

·         Why would John bring up the number of passages there are in the Bible?  Why doesn’t he then also mention how many passages are in the Catholic Bible as well? 

·         It’s odd how John tries to say that Christians don’t follow the codes of the Old Testament today, to try to make his point about sexuality. 

·         Catherine doesn’t define the term, love.  And she really hasn’t even defined the term, law.  So, why is she trying to speak about loving comes over law? 

·         So, how is John showing love and compassion toward me over any rule or law, by blocking the rest of my comments to his blog site?  2:26 minutes in

·         Odd how Catherine talks about how Jesus broke the law.  And so definitively.  Again, how does she justify my comments being blocked even from this article at John’s blog site?  It still sits right there, as potential comment #3:
o   “Your comment is awaiting moderation.
o   John, for some reason, three of my comments are still awaiting moderation at:

·         John is harming me by disrespecting me by blocking my comments when he is soliciting to the overall public.  He is harming an entire set of the population who are sga-nga (open about personally experiencing some level of same-sex (or same gender) sexual attractions and are not gay-affirming in terms of their intimate sexual behavior or their identity, by speaking against them, yet suggesting that wants to also represent them. 

·        Not to harm, malign, or oppress anyone…. he says.  Yet, he is doing it to me.  3:32 minutes in

·        Why does John talk about 3 Clobber passages?  That terminology is more than 10 years outdated. 

·        And John uses the term, Christians, in this broad brush stroke approach, actually meaning any subset of all of those who call themselves Christians or cultural Christians or nominal Christians… who do things he doesn’t like. 

·        Catherine is so sure that the apostle Paul wasn’t writing anything that has anything to do with gay people today – when she hasn’t yet defined who, gay people, are.  And she is so confident in her pronouncement of what she knows for sure that Paul knew about people who experience same-sex sexual attractions. 

·        So, Catherine is using the Oxford dictionary.  And yet she hasn’t used it to define all these terms that she has been using. 

·        Catherine still doesn’t define what the term, homosexuality, means.  Is it about orientation or behavior?  4:23 minutes in.

·        So now John goes right in with his unsubstantiated statement that today we know that people are born gay.  And again, when he hasn’t yet defined the term, gay. 

·        What is the point that no one in Paul’s time thought of themselves in terms that we use today, such as gay or lesbian?  Some sure thought of themselves as experiencing same-sex sexual attractions, and some likely experienced those sexual attractions from a young teen age, during Paul’s time. 

·        It was not, as John claims, that all homosexual sexual activity occurred by straight people acting in homosexual ways in the time of Paul’s writing.  How odd that John would say such a thing.  4:50 minutes in

·        John claims that in his time, there was no concept of gay people… What?  How can he say such a thing?  This is just becoming bizarre.  John is 4 years younger than I am.  I knew about people who said that they were gay when I was growing up.  5:03 minutes in

·        8 more minutes more to go…  I’m going to have to listen to this in stages. 

·        John doesn’t talk about why the APA changed its position in 1972.  The classification before 1972 did not consider the person who experienced same-sex sexual attractions as a straight person.  But then, John doesn’t even define that term, before using it.  There is a big difference even today between a straight person, an ever-straight person; a straight person in terms of identity, a straight person in terms of behavior, a straight person in terms of predominate attractions, a straight person in terms of same-sex sexual exploration, and a straight person who enjoys receiving sexual pleasure from a gay person. 

·        It is not true that the entire concept of gay people is entirely brand new.  It simply is not true.  This is just odd.  And he still hasn’t defined the term, gay people.  5:33 minutes in

·        The concept of LGBT didn’t exist in Pauls’ time, John keeps saying.  Which is not true, in that Paul did have an understanding of people who experienced same-sex sexual attractions, and people who experienced both same-sex sexual attractions and opposite-sex sexual attractions.  Paul had an idea of the concept of same-sex, opposite-sex, and sexual attractions to both sexes and the range of sexual behavior. 

·        Catherine now goes into what she thinks Paul understood homosexual sex to be.  She thinks that just because some of the Roman men had sex with other men and other boys, that this means that there weren’t people who were in love with other people of the same sex who were sexually attracted to people of the same sex and open about it at that time.  This again is just odd.  She actually thinks that the Roman same-sex sexual behavior amounted to rape.  Of course that happened sometimes.  Just like it happens that same way today even between two people who are openly gay in their sexual behavior.  Gay men rape other gay men today.  Straight men rape gay men today.  Gay men rape straight men today.  Does the NALT project support this behavior?  6:26 minutes in

·        John’s summary at this point is inaccurate.

·        Again, John doesn’t define homosexual, so when he refers to the concept of, homosexuality is a sin, he isn’t stating whether that is about behavior or attractions or orientation or identity. 

·        It’s odd that John equates the concept of, sell your possessions and give to the poor, with the concept of poverty.  Maybe God wants to then bless you with much more, after you give at one time, your possessions to the poor.  Of course, John doesn’t define what he means by the term, the poor.  And what if you have time or money or investments and not actual possessions?  How does that fit in?

·        Catherine isn’t even addressing the various viewpoints of Christians today of what the concept of a camel passing through the eye of a needle meant then. 

·        So, it’s even more odd that Catherine talks about how the context is important to consider, when they haven’t yet considered the context of what they have been speaking about.  7:26 minutes in

·         And then Catherine goes into the concept of women and head covering in church.  Hummm, in Paul’s time, most people didn’t meet in church but in homes. 

·        They adjust accordingly, Catherine says, about how people understand the cultural context of when a statement was made. 

·        John says that without context we can’t tell what is a crime or a horrible deed.  Yet, they continue to fail to present the context of the culture in the time of either the Old Testament or in the time that Paul was writing. 

·        It’s so odd that they talk about context in terms of killing, when it is far from obvious even right now today in the discussions about Syria’s use of chemical weapons, as to what is moral killing from Christians’ viewpoints.  Assad believes that his government is justly killing the terrorists trying to topple his government.  The last thing that Christians agree about is what is just killing of other people.  8:20 minutes in

·        Drunkenness, lust and lying, Catherine says, that the apostle Paul addresses in the same text that he addresses same-sex sexual behavior.  This again, is odd that she emphasizes that she doesn’t think that Christians today think that they are  “Never to commit any degree of those sins.”  Some Christians today don’t drink alcohol specifically because of this.  Some Christians today know that they will lust over other people of the same sex a lot more in certain settings so they avoid those settings.  Some Christians today have a broad range of different meanings for what is a lie. 

·        And it appears that Catherine takes wine as opposed to grape juice when she takes communion. 

·        Catherine talks about a passing lustful thought, but she doesn’t talk about the biblical concept of, when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin.  She tries to justify a little white lie to not hurt someone’s feelings.  Is that what they are doing by posting on my recent comments, “Your comments are awaiting moderation?” So, what is the context of their deciding to treat me this way?  Since they think context is so important.  9:05 minutes in

·        Now John uses the term, anti-gay Christians, when he hasn’t even begun to define that term.  He hasn’t even defined the term, Christian, or the term, gay.  Why would he thus then feel he needs to define the term, anti-? 

·        Listen to this phrasing: “The only one they always judge in absolute terms.”  Really…..?  How can a careful thinking person take this video seriously, no matter what position on any of these issues the person holds?  “Only one where context is never taken into account [intimate homosexual sexual behavior],” he goes on to say.  9:28 minutes in

·        This is odd, “the only thing on Paul’s list that straight people are never tempted to commit,” he says (about intimate same-sex sexual behavior).  What….?  Of course some straight men and some straight woman too, do, and not just are tempted to, commit this act that Paul defines as sin.  Do they not know about all the straight men who seek sexual favors from younger gay men or gay boys?  Often these men say that the gay men and gay boys know how to give oral sex to them better than their wives do.

·        Catherine says, “Christians are being very hypocritical in using the clobber passages…” when she hasn’t yet defined who the term, Christians, refers to.  She keeps using this blanket term of, Christians, and then is thinking only about a certain subset of that segment of the population when she is trying to make her points.  It’s just continues to be so odd.  9:43 minutes in

·        I need to take another break from listening to this.  Just over 3 minutes to do yet.  This is one of the poorest explanations of the pro-gay Christian positions that I have ever heard.  And trust me, I have literally heard hundreds. 

·        It’s as though Catherine doesn’t think that there are heterosexual Christians who seek to follow Paul’s suggestions, and at the same time she is thinking that people who define themselves as gay and Christian, all want to affirm sexual monogamy in a relationship.  And thus far, the time frame of those relationships, sometimes referred to as loving, long-term same-sex relationships, hasn’t been defined by John or Catherine, when they are presenting their position here of same-sex relationships.

·        It’s just odd how definitive Catherine is in her presentation of her viewpoint. 

·        Why does John contrast sex in a rape with sex in a marriage?  There is also rape in marriages. 

·        John tries to say his position applies to same-sex relationships that are as committed as heterosexual relationships.  While John knows that a large minority if not a majority of heterosexual sex by Christians happens outside of a Christian marriage today. 

·        And then John goes right back after this, to trying to say that God does not condemn LGBT people, when he again, hasn’t defined who falls into this category.  And that he hasn’t defined what sexual behavior he feels is sinful for people, other than rape, for people entering into intimate same-sex or intimate opposite-sex sexual behavior.  11:17 minutes in

·        John tries to state so definitively that homosexual sex is no more sinful than heterosexual sex, without defining what sexual expression beyond rape he feels is sinful. 

·        Catherine tries to suggest that the reason that gay youth, which she hasn’t yet defined who they are, are more likely to commit suicide than straight youth, is that their intimate sexual expression, except for rape, is not sinful.  When the implication is that there is some level of commitment first that justifies the sexual behavior as not being sinful. 

·         Thus, since Catherine has not defined the term, gay, whether this term also refers to people who are bisexual, transsexual, transgendered, intersex, and whether gay refers to identity, orientation, attractions, behavior or romantic attraction, her statements are unsupported.  11:53 minutes in

·        Now John moves into bullying.  As though bullying only happens toward people who John and Catherine define as gay.  As though bullying doesn’t happen toward bisexual youth by youth who are only attracted sexually to people of the same sex. 

·        Again, john hasn’t defined the term, gay people, that he uses again here.  He tries so say that the segment of Christians that he considers anti-gay, believe that gay people are an offense to God – again when John hasn’t defined whether his definition of the term, gay people, refers to their intimate sexual behavior or their sexual attractions, or orientation or identity.  Thus this statement by John is inaccurate.  Even Pope Francis recently tried to explain the position of the Catholic church on the differences between same-sex sexual attractions and same-sex sexual behavior. 

·        And of course, they haven’t defined what the term, LGBT-affirming Christians, means to them.  Does this include, for instance, the person who is a Christian who is bisexual and who chooses to be sexually intimate in a heterosexual marriage. 

·        John and Catherine’s ending is even more odd than all of their positions and explanations.  They just seem so angry.