Evangelical attempt to discredit Soulforce

[Depdem]

Just what the title says.

On youtube. April 18, 2007

It's about a one hr radio.

Stay on your toes ppl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81-jzZ_A0d8&mode=related&search=

Its a 6/6, 10min each section.

[sailaway58]

Just what the title says.

On youtube. April 18, 2007

It's about a one hr radio.

Stay on your toes ppl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81-jzZ_A0d8&mode=related&search=

81-jzZ_A0d8

I applaud the way the Soulforce group was described. Sounds like soulforce was well represented

[BrentRichards]

Not sure why they bothered to have Joe Dallas on the show ... they didn't let him talk. Oh well. Actually, Joe is one of the reasons I can respect the ex-gay movement. I know him very briefly, and have a close friend who was in therapy with him for some time. Joe is the genuine article. I disagree with him almost completely, but I have absolutely no doubt that he is motivated by genuine (though misguided) concern. He was on the ordination track with the MCC before entering some sort of conversion therapy. I find his arguments on the Biblical condemnations of homosexuality trite and not at all compelling, but again, the man himself is the real deal ... if all our opponents had Joe Dallas's heart, this would be a less unpleasant battle.

[Zerbie]

Just clueless: what do you mean, Joe Dallas is "the real deal?"

That he really changed?

[BrentRichards]

Just clueless: what do you mean, Joe Dallas is "the real deal?"

That he really changed?

Well, that I don't know. He says he has and I can just accept that at face value ... that's his experience of what happened to him, so fine. The idea that some kind of "change" (whatever that means ... behavior, emotions, self-identification) MIGHT be possible for some doesn't threaten me, nor does the idea that he might have been bi, or ... who knows. I don't have to have an answer to that one, personally.

But, what I really meant by the "real deal" is that I believe his faith, concern, and compassion are real ... he's not a snake oil salesman peddling a cure for profit. Just my take.

[Daniel]

But, what I really meant by the "real deal" is that I believe his faith, concern, and compassion are real ... he's not a snake oil salesman peddling a cure for profit. Just my take.

Real compassion that leads to the real suffering of a gay person? I wonder about the genesis of such compassion, and am left shaking my head.

Be it doctor of the body, or doctor of the soul, the first duty is to do no harm.

[Zerbie]

It's hard for me not to look upon this as Daniel does. I think I can allow for the possibility that the guy might really care, and be trying to do good for others, if that's what he believes himself. But I have a very difficult time with it, seeing the emotional torture that so many friends have endured in reparative therapies and ex-gay ministries.

If someone's orientation really has changed, then there's NO reason for them to build up a business around it. In a lot of ways, I believe that MINE changed, but I'm not going on right-wing talk radio promoting an ex-gay movement! :disagree:

I'm trying to be charitable, but the more I see the consequences of such ex-gaydom attempts, over an ever longer span of years, the more it seems foolhardy to condone something that promotes such a degree of psychological, emotional, spiritual torment and so easily leaves lasting psychological damage and suffering. The emotional suffering is incalculable!! Self-proclaimed ex-gays seem to deliberately provoke feelings of guilt, shame, self-judgment and insecurity and promise a fake security blanket, which at some later date falls apart and leaves the hoodwinked person stranded and alone.

Sorry. :( Brent:love:, I have no fight with you or your perceptions. I just find it really hard to imagine sharing that perspective on a self described "ex gay." I don't want any of you guys "ex-ing" on us - sounds a lot like death of the inner heart to me. :'(

[BrentRichards]

Please don't understand me as saying I approve of what he does. I don't. I think all I'm saying is really this:

A Soulforce Credo About My Adversary

I believe that my adversary is also a child of the Creator, that we are both members of the same human family, that we are sisters and brothers in need of reconciliation.

I believe that my adversary is not my enemy, but a victim of misinformation as I have been.

I believe that my only task is to bring my adversary truth in love (nonviolence) relentlessly.

I believe that my adversary's motives are as pure as mine and of no relevance to our discussion.

I believe that even my worst adversary has an amazing potential for positive change.

I believe that my adversary may have an insight into truth that I do not have.

I believe that one day my adversary and I will understand each other and that if we conduct our search for truth guided by the principles of love, we will find a new position to satisfy us both.

I think Joe is just a person who, because I've met him and have some sense of his character, I can more easily apply this credo to ... yes? no? deluded?

[Emproph]

but you might want to relay this message to him..
__
Anyway, I just bought Joe Dallas' book as a result of this: The Gay Gospel?: How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible. (http://www.amazon.com/Gay-Gospel-Pro-Gay-Advocates-Misread/dp/0736918345/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-9457869-2083826?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188504789&sr=8-1)

This should be interesting, especially coming from his 'sappy sappy joy joy' ex-gay theology.

Oh he's sincere alright, in the sense that he personally makes it a point to go out of his way to be as nonhypocritical as possible -- but still hangs around with and endorses flaming hypocrites and LIARS all the time.

The "gay" gospel? Like that's a bad thing? Yet we LGBT's are just "3%" of the population. Anyone with a WORKING BRAIN might consider the other 95% of the population who've had ADULTEROUS sex before marriage, in addition to those of them who are remarried -- and thus committing perpetual ADULTERY. -- All of whom are going to burn for all eternity in a lake of fire -- if Joe Dallas knows his Bible correct.

Does he really think that because he himself and those he convinces not to have human intimacy with a member of the same gender is going to make up for the THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS of souls who will spend an ETERNITY in hell because of his endorsement of hypocrisy and dishonesty, in direct relation to Christianity? Is this what he is going to tell God?

What little he must think of god.

So that's what Joe Dallas says to me; 'I don't give a crap about speaking out against the the lies and hypocrisy of the anti-gay industry in order to prevent souls from spending an ETERNITY IN HELL, I only care about giving the shiv to the gays in the least hypocritically appearing way possible - cuz I'm a christian.'

Tell me Joe, if the Bible is so inerrant, why is there a warning on the last page not to cause error to it? Wouldn't that be an error?

Take a look at his face, he's not happy. I get the impression he's trying to prove it to himself. That poor man needs to fall in love. All he has is his money from his anti-gay fame.

God **** it he makes me angry. You strategically innocuous pig. How dare you thwart and pervert the faith of the least of these. You have idea of the damage you do. (sic)

And YES, just as I judge you, I am willing to take on this judgement the same!

How dare you condemn so many others to hell for your anti-gay, or as you call it "ex-gay" agenda.

Keep telling yourself that God's going to be convinced. But know that it will be people like me around to witness to the fact that you consistently endorsed life-destroying hypocrisy and lies.

[Zerbie]

Please don't understand me as saying I approve of what he does. I don't. I think all I'm saying is really this:



I think Joe is just a person who, because I've met him and have some sense of his character, I can more easily apply this credo to ... yes? no? deluded?

I can see that. as I said, I'm having some difficulty with it. In the very long broad cosmic view, yes, one day we will all know what the answers were, the questions won't matter anymore, and we will share a joyous eternity together. But let's not deny that today kind of sucks. :rolleyes:

[BrentRichards]

I can see that. as I said, I'm having some difficulty with it. In the very long broad cosmic view, yes, one day we will all know what the answers were, the questions won't matter anymore, and we will share a joyous eternity together. But let's not deny that today kind of sucks. :rolleyes:

Indeed. As it stands, I'm sorry I mentioned it!

[revtj]

Be it doctor of the body, or doctor of the soul, the first duty is to do no harm.

That is consistent with the ethical standards of many ordained ministers in varied organizations as well as clinical ethics of professionals in healthcare, including counseling, etc. It is also consistent with Soulforce principles.

If we disagree with someone's anti-gay theology and their arguments against Soulforce, it is indeed the misinformation we are committed to putting down NOT the person.

An excellent example of this very principle put in action happened this year at Atlanta Gay Pride celebration the last Sunday in June. For the last few years we have had obnoxious protestors (think Fred Phelps, although they were not with his church to my knowledge) and a group went to the mayor to try and ban their permit to protest @ Atlanta Gay Pride. The mayor was prepared to revoke their license to protest (she needs the gay vote desperately!) but another group went to city hall, including a pastor who is active in Soulforce Atlanta, and demanded the hateful religious group BE ALLOWED to protest freely at Gay Pride, despite what a nuisance they are and how ignorant they seem to be.

The second group prevailed and the anti-gay group was issued a permit to protest at Pride. They held their bible verse signs and yelled stupid repent messages. Yes, it was annoying. But it was their message that is flawed, not their right to present the message.

I do not want my (our your) right to free speech infringed upon just because some people are hateful and ignorant. I have enough faith in the majority of Americans to see and hear what is real and what is hateful.

By fighting for their right to protest, gay Atlantans actually won some respect from the group. It isn't worth all that much, true, but in an era where the constitutional rights of individuals are being shredded up left and right, I think it was a laudable stand.

What say you?

[Daniel]

I do not want my (our your) right to free speech infringed upon just because some people are hateful and ignorant. I have enough faith in the majority of Americans to see and hear what is real and what is hateful.

By fighting for their right to protest, gay Atlantans actually won some respect from the group. It isn't worth all that much, true, but in an era where the constitutional rights of individuals are being shredded up left and right, I think it was a laudable stand.

What say you?


Agree wholeheartedly. It is a laudable stand. And carries with it what I would characterize as real moral authority.

One wishes that the majority of Americans actually do see and hear what is real and what is hateful. It's a slow process however! :lol:

[SomervilleGuy]

Yes, this was definitely a laudable stand. It is this very freedom that lets us have the freedom live open lives in the US.

As far as getting the public to be more accepting of gays, I think if television would show more positive examples of gay couples, it would help a lot. As one who is just now coming out, I can count on my one hand the number of times that I have seen gay couples on TV in all my 49 years. Pretty much all of those were on "Queer As Folk" episodes, which I had to watch when my wife wasnt home or wasnt awake. I thank God for the Logo network. It has helped me alot.

Another thing that helps a lot is listening to HRC's "The Agenda" on XM radio online. I never miss that show now.

If gay couples were just more visible, it would help a whole lot too! Up to this year, I only ever knew of two gay couples in my whole life! They seem to hide out really well! I cant really blame them I guess. However I live in liberal NJ - surely I should be seeing more GLBT couples here.

[Emproph]

Before we get to that though, I do want to mention that I think I understand what Brent means when he says Dallas is the “real deal.” I pretty much said all this in my post above, but I’ve been thinking about it more because I want to be sure.
But, what I really meant by the "real deal" is that I believe his faith, concern, and compassion are real ... he's not a snake oil salesman peddling a cure for profit. Just my take.Real compassion that leads to the real suffering of a gay person? I wonder about the genesis of such compassion, and am left shaking my head.
The reason he seems to make me angrier than the run-of-the-mill anti-gays is specifically because he goes out of his way to “be sincere,” and to not appear as a "snake oil salesman," not unlike Stanton Jones does. They take the typical love the sinner hate the sin approach, but instead of a trite one-liner about loving the sinner before launching into anti-gay tirade, they actually spend some time with the notion, and this is what seems to unconsciously grate on me.

It’s as though they are even more aware of their own immoral hypocrisy, and as a result, take extra steps to lie to themselves in order to deny it. In short, it seems that they are more aware of their lies, but the end result is a more sincere sounding package.

~~~
From my post above:
The "gay" gospel? Like that's a bad thing? Yet we LGBT's are just "3%" of the population. Anyone with a WORKING BRAIN might consider the other 95% of the population who've had ADULTEROUS sex before marriage, in addition to those of them who are remarried -- and thus committing perpetual ADULTERY. -- All of whom are going to burn for all eternity in a lake of fire -- if Joe Dallas knows his Bible correct.
And apparently he does. From his new book, "The Gay Gospel?"


The late Reverend Sylvia Pennington, a heterosexual advocate for the gay Christian movement, included an alleged revelation about marriage and divorce in her book-length argument against the possibility of anyone overcoming homosexuality:
When any human relationship begins to infringe on the most important and eternal relationship -- which is our union with Christ -- the Lord Himself will end that human relationship. When the pain of an unsuccessful marriage begins to separate either party from God, then it is God, and not the people, who ends the marriage.
Contrary to Jesus' specific reference to fornication being the only grounds for divorce (Matthew 19:9), Reverend Pennington gave the go-ahead for divorce proceedings to anyone feeling his or her marriage has begun to "infringe" on his or her relationship with God.
Matthew 19:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:9;&version=9;) KJV:


And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
From the article: "Out of Deception" By Joe Dallas, as told to Bob Davies
Here's the link (http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/pages/joe_d.html), but be forewarned, this is an ex-gay site.
I married Brad's secretary, Carol, and went full-time into the ministry. The year was 1972, and I'd been saved less than two years. Everything took place so fast that I hardly knew what was happening.

[snip]

As my bitterness increased, all the old homosexual feelings began to return. I started falling in love with guys at work, and one night, on a whim, I went into an adult bookstore. Soon I was right back into the old lifestyle.

At first Carol had no idea what I was up to, but soon she must have guessed. I started smoking and staying out late. Then I sensed something was wrong with her, as she'd come home with booze on her breath and neither one of us supposedly drank. We never confronted one another, but finally I took her out for dinner. "Carol," I calmly told her during the meal, "I really wonder if you might be happier on your own."

She thought about it for a few minutes. "Yeah, I think I would be."

Inside, I was desperately hoping that she'd ask, "Joe, what's going on? What on earth is happening?" But she didn't, and I pretended to be cool.

"Yes," I said calmly, "I think separation would be best for both of us." Within two weeks, Carol was gone, and we later divorced. My whole life had totally fallen apart in three months.

[snip]

As the months passed, I met an attractive young lady named Renee....Two years later, Renee and I were married on August 8, 1987.

Joe Dallas, divorced and remarried as a result of [I]HIS marital unfaithfulness.

BTW, the subtitle of his new book "The Gay Gospel?" is: "How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible."

Air-sick bag anyone?

[u-dog]

Joe Dallas, divorced and remarried as a result of HIS marital unfaithfulness.

BTW, the subtitle of his new book "The Gay Gospel?" is: "How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible."

Air-sick bag anyone?


Can anyone familiar with how fundies think tell me how they justify this to themselves? Brent? Jesus clearly and unequivocally says that remarriage is adultery. So why does Dallas NOT say to himself "I must now live in chaste singleness"?

This is a huge question that I have in our Presbyterian debate on issues of gay marriage and gay ordination. We insist that glbt people live either within a marriage between a man and a woman or in chaste singleness but NO ONE suggests that this same standard be applied to divorced heterosexuals.

MY question is : what is the mental process or argument by which conservatives harmonize this logical dissonance?

[Daniel]

Can anyone familiar with how fundies think tell me how they justify this to themselves?

MY question is : what is the mental process or argument by which conservatives harmonize this logical dissonance?

It’s as though they are even more aware of their own immoral hypocrisy, and as a result, take extra steps to lie to themselves in order to deny it. In short, it seems that they are more aware of their lies, but the end result is a more sincere sounding package.


Denial means that we see what we want to see, even in the face of contradictory information. As the saying goes: "Projection makes for perception."

Does some part of our brain "know"? Ubdoubtedly. However, another part of the brain is intent on something else entirely, which points out how the 'mind' can be divided against itself.

My sense is that straight conservatives give themselves a pass when it comes to adultery in much the same way that anyone does when they are focused on what they want and nothing else. At that point, faith is hardly a concern.

[BenL]

My sense is that straight conservatives give themselves a pass when it comes to adultery in much the same way that anyone does when they are focused on what they want and nothing else. At that point, faith is hardly a concern.

It seems to me that to most straight people sex outside of marriage is a sin of weakness (especially for men) and, therefore, eminently forgivable. I wonder why, then, for gay people who don't have marriage it is a sin of perfidy and not forgivable without total denial of our very nature.

Sex is a basic human appetite. Why has it become more heinous than murder or child abuse or blasphemy or idolatry or ... :eek:

[Steven E. Webster]

It seems to me that to most straight people sex outside of marriage is a sin of weakness (especially for men) and, therefore, eminently forgivable. I wonder why, then, for gay people who don't have marriage it is a sin of perfidy and not forgivable without total denial of our very nature.

Sex is a basic human appetite. Why has it become more heinous than murder or child abuse or blasphemy or idolatry or ... :eek:

Ah, but homosexuality is more than just sex. It is a violation of "the order of nature," "God's plan," and (in de-mystified language) traditional gender roles. For many of us traditional gender roles no longer have much power, and they become less powerful day by day, but in the Evangelical/Fundamentalist sub-culture traditional gender roles are extremely important.

Steven Webster

[Depdem]

Lol.. this thread is such a relief from the constant, 'ohh that boy is nice, I think hes looking at me... i wonder, should I speak to him?'... then becomes intertwined with the 'Are you mad!.. what if hes not gay!?... this is not right, change or burn!' thoughts. Ultimately it lies in courage,imo, to stand up for something. But that something is still so obscure to me.

Most of the points pointed out in these 6 you tube clips are effectively confronted by Stephanreyu in "Gay Bomb"(4 series) and Romans 1 Finalized.
Starts here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO1NPo4Z9GA

Heres some unsatisfied doubts:
to'evah can lead both ways (according to Joe Dallas) and since its surrounded by many morally wrong actions we can only but infer that this also has that implied morally wrong connotation, no?...
But not only that.. if this is true then it is only backed up by Romans 1: where it says its a perversion.


I think I could somewhat defend this tho :-/ if I'm twisting the words, plz untwist em.

To'evah can't be used to defend that homosexuality is condemned by the bible because:
1- to'evah can mean unclean and does not, in itself, have any implied moral meaning. There are instances where this is used that supports this.
2-There were words to describe something that was morally wrong or evil, but they were not used here.
3- It is also accompanied by verses that said that disobedient children should be put to death and that men could not do it with women in their menstrual period or they were to be cast out.
4-Last but not least, it doesn't condemn lesbian homosexuality which makes it an even weaker argument vs gays.

Romans 1...:
1- Homosexuality, as like heterosexuality, if acted upon lustful impulses, is a perversion.

btw, does Romans 1:24 target heterosexuality or just introducing what he'll later say about homosexual lust?

[BrentRichards]

Can anyone familiar with how fundies think tell me how they justify this to themselves? Brent? Jesus clearly and unequivocally says that remarriage is adultery. So why does Dallas NOT say to himself "I must now live in chaste singleness"?

This is a huge question that I have in our Presbyterian debate on issues of gay marriage and gay ordination. We insist that glbt people live either within a marriage between a man and a woman or in chaste singleness but NO ONE suggests that this same standard be applied to divorced heterosexuals.

MY question is : what is the mental process or argument by which conservatives harmonize this logical dissonance?

In a word: forgiveness. I think they look at it as "I was in sin back then, but I'm better now" ... oversimplification, but ... I also think some would hold that even if your previous marriage ended via your OWN unfaithfulness, it was a legitimate divorce, and therefore you are free to remarry. I've found most fundies have a high "oops" tolerance when it's about themselves.

NOT defending this way of thinking, just trying to answer your question with an explanation of how I think I would have understood it "back then."

[u-dog]

In a word: forgiveness. I think they look at it as "I was in sin back then, but I'm better now" ... oversimplification, but ... I also think some would hold that even if your previous marriage ended via your OWN unfaithfulness, it was a legitimate divorce, and therefore you are free to remarry. I've found most fundies have a high "oops" tolerance when it's about themselves.

NOT defending this way of thinking, just trying to answer your question with an explanation of how I think I would have understood it "back then."


The "Oops" argument only works if you consider DIVORCE to be the sin. Jesus is very CLEAR that the sin is divorce and remarriage. My question is how do they justify asking others to live celibately but NOT divorced people?

Why not "Oops I sinned and fucked up my marriage, now I will live a chaste and single life"?

[BrentRichards]

The "Oops" argument only works if you consider DIVORCE to be the sin. Jesus is very CLEAR that the sin is divorce and remarriage. My question is how do they justify asking others to live celibately but NOT divorced people?

Why not "Oops I sinned and fucked up my marriage, now I will live a chaste and single life"?

I agree, it's inconsistent! I'm just telling you how I think they justify it (how I might have "back then")

[u-dog]

I agree, it's inconsistent! I'm just telling you how I think they justify it (how I might have "back then")

I get that, Brent. But you weren't stupider back then than you are now. You MUST have SEEN the inconsistency. How would you have justified it? That's my question.

[BrentRichards]

I get that, Brent. But you weren't stupider back then than you are now. You MUST have SEEN the inconsistency. How would you have justified it? That's my question.

Hmmm ... you make an interesting point. No, as far as I can tell, I wasn't stupider. Doubtless it is related to the gut-level sense most fundies have that gay is THE sin. So hey, if you're bailing on being gay, you're entitled to a get-out-of-adultery-free card? I'm not sure, I'll have to mull on this.

I have gone back several times recently to the stuff I wrote as an "ex-gay" advocate, and I can easily pull out the fallacies in my thinking then, even as I was writing about the fallacious logic of "the opposition" (of which I am now one) ... why didn't I see those problems then? Or did I? How could I scream consistency and then ignore inconsistency in myself? The words "cognitive dissonance" come to mind, but ...

I do know (tangent) that there was a real tendency in me (whether this is true of anyone else, I don't know) to accept things as true because I didn't want them to be, and to refuse to acknowledge truth that I wanted to be true ... no, I didn't reverse those, its a twisted way to think, I know ... but the fact that I REALLY WANTED the pro-gay theology (as we called it) to be true made me that much more resistent to even considering it. My assumption was that I would accept it as true because of my emotional investment, rather than because the facts pointed that way. Beyond this, I think there was a deeply embedded sense of God as the cosmic killjoy ... if I want it, God can't be for it. The fundie response to this was not to argue that God could be for it, but rather that you don't really want it... cause it's not "good for you." Thanks. That helps.

[Daniel]

I get that, Brent. But you weren't stupider back then than you are now. You MUST have SEEN the inconsistency. How would you have justified it? That's my question.

The assumption seems to be that thinking is involved. And I don't mean to labor the point, but I don't think justification is the point.

My own memory of my Pentacostal days tells me that Fundies deal with these matters just like they do with everything else they don't want to face: they ignore it.

Out of sight. Out of mind.

They ignore the facts about human sexuality as it applies to gay people. Why should we expect them to be more aware about their own actions towards divorce and remarriage?

Brent- I think yout put your finger on it. It has everything to do with one's investment. Things in motion tend to stay in motion. And when you have a fundi (closed) sytstem, everything that keeps it going just pushes aside everything that doesn't. And Jesus' words about adultery? They get pushed aside.

[Emproph]

MY question is : what is the mental process or argument by which conservatives harmonize this logical dissonance?
Ah, but homosexuality is more than just sex. It is a violation of "the order of nature," "God's plan," and (in de-mystified language) traditional gender roles. For many of us traditional gender roles no longer have much power, and they become less powerful day by day, but in the Evangelical/Fundamentalist sub-culture traditional gender roles are extremely important.
I also think some would hold that even if your previous marriage ended via your OWN unfaithfulness, it was a legitimate divorce, and therefore you are free to remarry. I've found most fundies have a high "oops" tolerance when it's about themselves.
The "Oops" argument only works if you consider DIVORCE to be the sin. Jesus is very CLEAR that the sin is divorce and remarriage. My question is how do they justify asking others to live celibately but NOT divorced people?

Why not "Oops I sinned and fucked up my marriage, now I will live a chaste and single life"?

I think Steven has it right. Gender roles is an aspect of it, but the fact that we are a “violation of nature,” in an of itself – the quintessential embodiment of unnatural, if you will – makes our “unrepentant sin” particularly unforgivable.

By violating nature, we violate God’s creation, and thus violate God, directly – by and with our very being. To then accept this about ourselves, is the ULTIMATE blasphemy.

Heterosexual adultery, via cheating on one’s partner, or divorce and remarriage, is simply missing the mark on the sin scale – at least nature was the original goal, and thus the attempt was in line with God's creation.

It’s the difference between committing sin, and LOVING to commit sin. That’s it! That says a lot about why they literally love to hate us.

They say our love is sin, what they don’t tell us is that they perceive this to be our love OF sin.

And/Or:

They say our love is evil, what they don’t tell us is that they perceive this to be our love OF evil.

Which is a strikingly similar perception to that of Paul’s depiction of “us” in Romans 1. Going from the unnaturalness of same-gender attraction, to every description of evil imaginable. But just like the bigots of today, no connection between the two is ever explained.

I think they conflate their own revulsion of same-gender attraction with the revulsion to evil that we all share.

And if you live by a dogmatic standard of denying truth to begin with, and are then indoctrinated to think of gay people as equivalent to "disgusting" gay sex, it shouldn’t be that hard to decide without thinking about it, that gay people must then be evil.

Understanding gay people and liberals is like geometry for them, yet they're still taking simple math...

[Emproph]

This seems familiar to me as far as what I've been able to determine from an outsider's perspective. I didn't realize you'd "crossed over" from the dark side (or to the dark side, depending on one's perspective :D).
I do know (tangent) that there was a real tendency in me (whether this is true of anyone else, I don't know) to accept things as true because I didn't want them to be, and to refuse to acknowledge truth that I wanted to be true ... no, I didn't reverse those, its a twisted way to think, I know ... but the fact that I REALLY WANTED the pro-gay theology (as we called it) to be true made me that much more resistent to even considering it.
That has been brought up before in the attempt to understand the other side, and it makes sense, at least in principle.

If one's perspective is faulty, or based on potentially illogical, or dogmatic beliefs to begin with, then any acknowledgment of ANY error could potentially unravel the whole thing. Thus destroying one's entire worldview.
My assumption was that I would accept it as true because of my emotional investment, rather than because the facts pointed that way.
And in regard to that, to change one's mind would mean being wrong about everything you ever believed.
Beyond this, I think there was a deeply embedded sense of God as the cosmic killjoy ... if I want it, God can't be for it. The fundie response to this was not to argue that God could be for it, but rather that you don't really want it... cause it's not "good for you." Thanks. That helps. (God I love that line ^. In fact I'm stealing it :shifty:)


So my question is, what made you change your mind?

What specifically lead you to believe that it was ok to think different thoughts?

Furthermore, what lead you to continue doing so, to the point where your entire worldview changed?

If you've said it already, feel free to direct me toward that thread or post. I'm just looking for that key point where the reasoning of it finally made it into your consciousness. :)

[BrentRichards]

My original intro post thread ... maybe it will shed some light?

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2541