Pat. Seriously. Chill. You’re NOT Helping.

Just when you thought you’ve heard/seen/read/digested it all, another wave of stupid comes to burn…

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Advertisements

~ by WriterRand on June 9, 2009.

19 Responses to “Pat. Seriously. Chill. You’re NOT Helping.”

  1. Actually, I think this is a very important little video. Earlier today I posted this on my Facebook and asked my conservative Christian friends who oppose homosexuality but say they aren’t like Pat Robertson and his ilk to watch the video and explain to me exactly where they disagree with him. I’m guessing there will be no replies.

  2. The thing that bothers me is that there’s just enough truth in there and just enough reasoning to start to sound reasonable (no, I don’t want my gay friends going to Hell and yes, acting on these feelings is a sin…) but then the stupid kicks into overdrive and I lose my mind all over again. It’s not that Pat’s doing this stuff on purpose, being misleading and ignorant, it’s that he has a HUGE audience who hangs on his every word as gospel (and sometimes Gospel with the capital G.) If someone asked me whether or not I was molested by my coach in high school and that’s why I am/was gay, I would have eliminated a few of that person’s teeth in the process.

    Now if he’d just book a few reasonable people from the ex-gay side who will explain things to him.

  3. Good points, FG. I think Robertson is just ignorant and probably hasn’t researched this issue enough, which is odd, since you’d think a guy who talked about gays in America often would at least read some of Exodus International’s materials (not that I agree with many of those materials, mind you, but they’re less offensive than what he said).

    In general, it just get’s annoying. I’m an SSA guy. Can’t my experiences and perceptions just be believed, without people assuming I was abused or that my dad didn’t love me?

  4. I don’t have much to add except my own experience… I was never sexually abused and I still deal with SSA. I do believe gay sex is sin, but the feelings alone are not sin if not acted on.

  5. I don’t understand some of the responses here. Many people in the Exodus camp have or continue to espouse the same line pat does here so I am not sure setting Pat straight by someone from Exodus is really going to be that useful. And regarding feelings vs the act being a sin – how do you know that? It’s quite possible (if Calvinism is true) that homosexual feelings are just indicative of the fact that you are not one of the elect. I’m sure Mr Driscoll would have some enlightened words to share with us about that.

    • Yeah, it seems contradictory. I got that. But I’d rather have Exodus’s arcane mix of politics and Jesus over just plain ignorant woolgathering, which is what Pat appears to be doing here. It’s that he reads something somewhere or, worse, does a variation on that ol’ Fox Noise “people are saying,” and people lap it up as gospel. Occasionally Exodus does get a few things right and I’d rather see those bits represented than more noise from Pat.

      And don’t get me started on Driscoll. He’d never take it as an indication that you were not elect. He’d simply say that you were sinning, that you needed to stop, and that you need to have a relationship with Jesus. And I’d agree. (Watch to see this point hammered home and expanded in upcoming posts.)

    • Why would having homosexual feelings be a sign that you aren’t one of the elect? I’m a Calvinist, and I have gay feelings. Being saved doesn’t mean that you don’t still have a fallen nature (and thus the various temptations that go along with it). And the Bible is pretty clear that temptations of any kind are different from a consciously-chosen act. Scripture says Christ was tempted in every way, but never sinned. Thus, temptations (or feelings) are not sinful.

      • So you’re telling me you’ve never acted on them? Never lusted after them in your heart? Never fantasized about them? As a Calvinist you have to engage the idea that it is quite possible that you are not one of the elect. And how can you know you are or aren’t? I’d love to meet a Calvinist who believes they aren’t one of the elect. It’s easy to hypothesis from a place of privilege (God chose me!) but what if you’re wrong? What if you’re homosexuality is just a sign that God never chose you in the first place?

      • “What if you’re homosexuality is just a sign that God never chose you in the first place?”

        Because then everyone’s sinful passions would be a sign that God never chose them. My homosexual temptations are no worse than another person’s heterosexual temptations, or their angry temperament, or their pride, or their compulsive gossiping. All sins are equally worth damning, so why should a homosexual orientation be a sign that one is non-elect, but other lifelong battles with vices not be?

      • “My homosexual temptations are no worse than another person’s heterosexual temptations…” Really? Romans 1 seems to have a different take on that. It says there that God turned you over. It goes on to say in 1 Corinthians, the passage where this blog gets its name, that folks such as yourself will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. You can say, “Well, that passage is followed up with ‘as were some of you’…” But, again, do you still find yourself drawn to men? Do you still find yourself attracted to them? How long have you been praying for God to deliver you of this? It could be time to consider that God just isn’t listening to you.

      • Lee, the term in 1 Corinthians which is usually translated as “homosexual” is “arsenokoitai,” which is an action word (like “stealer” or “liar”). Specifically, “arsenokoitai” is made of two terms: “arsenos” which means “man” and “koitai” which means “to bed” or “to lay” (its similarity to the term “coitus” is not coincidental). In other words, although it is often improperly translated as “homosexual,” the 1 Corinthian term actually specifically talks about behavior, not orientation, because it essentially translates to “man-bedder” or “man-layer.” Many translations realize this by specifically translating the term as “homosexual offenders” (NIV) or “men who practice homosexuality” (ESV).

        Also, Romans 1 does not show God giving mankind over to just homosexual passions. The chapter shoes God’s wrath not against a group of individuals, but against mankind as a whole. We all have been given over to sinful desires and passions, and our only hope is Jesus. After the verses about homosexual practice, Romans 1 lists these sins as something that men are given over to as well: Envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness, gossip, slander, hatred, insolence, pride, foolishness, faithlessness, heartlessness, and ruthlessness.

        So you’re essentially saying that no one can be a Christian if they have a sinful nature. You’re saying that no one can call themselves a Christian if they struggle with envy, or pride, or gossip, or anger. Even Paul mentioned the thorn in his side, meaning the sinful passions that he still struggled with despite his service to God. It makes no sense to single out homosexual temptations as a sign of not being elect, when homosexual behavior is not singled out in the Bible. It’s always part of a list of other sins that everyone struggles with.

  6. Pat is here to make life more interesting…
    Uncertainty does not sell well so he has to cater to his audience. He can’t go up there and tell the truth just like that: “Nobody really knows what causes homosexuality.” That would be scandalous.

  7. Lee, you’re assuming that just because the desires haven’t gone completely away, a person isn’t healed or being healed by God. I can tell you that instead of instantaneous healing, I have learned more (and gained, gained, GAINED more) by the journey and the process that God has designed just for me. Sure, he could heal instantly, but what would you learn about your sin? About God? About yourself? Anything?

    You breeze through 1 Corinthians 6 a little quickly. The verse that you paraphrase is 1 Corinthians 6:9-11:

    9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. BUT YOU WERE WASHED, YOU WERE SANCTIFIED, YOU WERE JUSTIFIED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. (Emphasis mine.)

    If you’re not practicing, you’re not sinning.

    If you’re not practicing, and you have given those sins to Jesus, you are washed, sanctified, and justified in Him. Period.

    If you do fall, slip, engage in some practice, you are a child of God who needs to go talk to his Heavenly Father. One slip does not trash your spiritual birthright as long as you’re at His feet, asking for forgiveness.

    As for Romans 1, yes, it says men were given over to a burning lust. But you leave out why. The reason men were turned over to a reprobate mind is also the key OUT of that reprobate mind.

    • “If you’re not practicing, and you have given those sins to Jesus, you are washed, sanctified, and justified in Him. Period.”

      Unless you’re not one of the elect? I know you used to attend MH so I don’t know if you still consider yourself a Calvinist or not.

      It sounds like most people here are making excuses as to why they are still tempted or even give in to temptation. As Exodus and many pastors have claimed, there are apparently hundred if not thousands of people who have been changed. Why them and not you?

      How do you explain that?

      • Because different people are on different journeys. Because God does what He wants for different people, so that He may be glorified in different ways (again, He didn’t remove Paul’s sinful thorn for this reason). Because some Exodus folks who claim to have been “changed” are speaking about their spirituality and their behavior, not their orientation. Because heterosexual desires aren’t exactly an indicator of salvation, because heterosexual lust is just as bad as homosexual lust.

        Need I go on?

      • You could! I am sure some Exodus folk mean that but the overwhelming majority are talking about a change in orientation. You mentioned that homosexual behavior is not singled out when it certainly is. Jesus said that if you’ve even though about someone with lust in your heart you’ve committed adultery. So, while you may not have “done the deed” you’ve certainly “done the deed” if what Jesus said is correct.
        I really don’t mean to beat these points into the ground or fight with some folks who are struggling (truth be told, I was one of you once – after years I just gave up which lead me down other roads where I questioned other things about God and have landed as an agnostic). But I do believe if you make certain claims about the character of God you have to honestly ask yourself these questions. If you’re a Calvinist it would seem to me that you have to wrestle with the fact that God may not have chosen you or even hear you no matter how hard you’d like him to.

      • “If you’re a Calvinist it would seem to me that you have to wrestle with the fact that God may not have chosen you or even hear you no matter how hard you’d like him to.”

        That’s the thing: If you want God to hear you, and you want Him to save you, then that’s a pretty good sign that He already has heard you and already has saved you. Without the Holy Spirit, no man can even desire to do what is right in God’s eyes.

        I mean, there are certainly things to wrestle with in Calvinism. My Calvinism is a bit eclectic and I still have a lot of issues to work out, but it’s not like similar issues don’t pop up in Wesleyan theology. And yes, we know that Jesus said lusting in your heart is the same as doing the deed. Are you saying that no straight Christians lust after people who aren’t their spouses? Is the absence of sin an indicator of who is saved or not? No. We all sin each and every day of our lives, even if we’re saved. The only person who did not was Christ alone.

        Back to your original statement, I suggest you read J.C. Ryle’s sermons “Election” and “Assurance.” Both can be found online and deal with the details of some of the questions you’re raising here. Even if you don’t believe in a Calvinist point of view (and like I said, I always don’t), you can at least learn enough there to not misrepresent it. To put it simply, if someone is earnestly seeking after Christ, loves Him, and wants to do what He commands, then He’s not going to ignore them.

  8. Mark’s latest sermon, “Faith in your New Birth,” may be most helpful here, since you’re hung up on some of his previous statements. I found this one deeply encouraging:

    http://www.marshillchurch.org

  9. It has seemed to me, for the past thirty five years or thereabouts, that our understanding of the reference to “lusting in your heart” has the emphasis all wrong. I don’t think He is saying that lusting is the same as the actual carnal knowledge. Rather, “Why do condemn anyone for doing what you want to do?” Doesn’t that make more sense?

    At an age that is past most lusts, I can just say that glands lead you to do some crazy things. The slackening of lust does not make me more judgmental, but more sympathetic, and also more aware of ways to avoid temptation. My wife and I married young, and, since we loved each other, we avoided tempting situations, a habit that we developed very early. Thus, we might very well try to boink each other to death, but were thoroughly continent with others. We did not attend a lot of drunken parties. We did not flirt with other people. I sometimes worked nights, and, if anyone came home with me, when my wife was at work in the day time, there was always a group there, or, if only one guy, someone clearly straight.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: