Blogcritics: Comments on Such Good Christians

Comment by SandyJ

Sat, 21 Feb 2004 12:25:32 EST

It is my opinnion that Julie Millam's statement is being misinterpreted. REALITY IS THAT THE GAY LIFESTYLE CAN BE FATAL (AIDS). She is saying that a dose of reality would be to show the consequences gays can face. I don't like the program "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." I don't define my actions by describing that I am married and heterosexual! My "sex life" is private, and should be. I am a Christian and have "gay" friends (they are not really "gay"). Their lifestyle is one of unhappiness. I love them, however, they know I do not support nor approve of their lifestyle CHOICE. Jesus loves the sinner, but NOT THE SIN. That is another REALITY. Define tolerance please. The Bible calls homosexuality sinful. Murder and stealing are sinful, I do not tolerate those actions. I can, however love the person, but hate the sin. If I love you, I won't approve of sin in your life. I can treat you with a loving attitude, but still hate the sin.

Comment by BB

Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:20:32 EST

And that Natalie is your opinion and you have every right to it. And despite our differences I still love you (in a platonic/spiritual sense of the meaning ... of course ;-) Let me end by saying that I'm all for reasonableness (if that is actually a word), BUT I find most of the Bible is on the whole straightforward and not that open for interpretation providing its context is retained. Unfortunately, many of our laws are imposing on issues of morality (at least as far as many people are concerned). And that is why we get into conflicts like this. So in the end we can agree to disagree (although not on all that much) without resorting to name calling and all that horrible stuff. Good night and sweet dreams.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:01:37 EST

I am not feeling hot or bothered. In fact, it's a little chilly in my living room right now. Out having fun... Not everyone has that privilege, sad to say. As for law, first of all, in terms of God's law, there are varying interpretations. But in terms of human's laws, in the US, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. Citizens come in all stripes. Many don't believe in God at all. So why should they, under secular law, be forced to live under a religion's or multiple religion's rules and be punished for not doing so under *secular* law? I find the imposition of certain religious beliefs in civil law to be most unreasonable and unjust. And as for TV shows, I am all for the call to lighten up. If there is something on that you don't wish to see, by all means, change the channel.

Comment by BB

Sun, 26 Oct 2003 02:43:18 EST

I didn't realize that we were getting all that hot and bothered. I am merely pointing out a different perspective. In fact part of my message is to "lighten up" as you say. I am weary of all the rhetoric, name calling and bashing, whether it be from so-called Christians or gay activists. If we are going discuss such topics then let us do it with logic, sensitivity and mutual respect.

Comment by Cecilia

Sun, 26 Oct 2003 02:28:41 EST

Whoa, hold on a minute, folks: I really don't think that this subject matter is what I'd call "music, books, film, popular culture, and technology"...it's just far too personal and sensitive. But hey, you've pushed my buttons, so now I'm going so say something. The world is changing. Whether or we like it or not, society is simply not what it was 100, 50, or even 25 years ago. It will never be the same, either. We can all count on it. Not only is the world changing, but it is doing so at a rapidly accelerating pace. What does this mean for Christians? I don't know. My guess is that the world is going to be a tougher place to deal with unless we can find some way to adjust to what is, and try to live and let live. Maybe "reality" TV is not all that "real" because REAL reality is just too fucking scary. Watching a couple of planes plow into the World Trade Center was real, wasn't it? It was probably the most horrible thing I have ever seen. So by comparison, if a bunch of gay men want to do a makeover on some straight guy with a Coors hat and a picture of a dead elk on his t-shirt...all I can say is lighten up already. This whole HIV business should not even be mentioned in the context of gays anymore. For how then can we explain the babies born to HIV-positive, drug-addicted mothers? What did these kids do to deserve this? I am not trying to put Christians on the defensive here; I am merely pointing out that compared to some of the "reality" taking place in the world, "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" is light-hearted entertainment.

Comment by BB

Sun, 26 Oct 2003 02:17:45 EST

Gee Natalie. I thought I was the only one without a life. What are you doing here on a Saturday night? You should be out having fun!!! Actually you bring up a good point. We have one law - of God, and another - of man (or woman). When there is a conflict who is right? Should man's law usurp God's or vice-versa? And I'm not talking about separation of church and state. I'm all for being fair, but I also believe as the Bible says - 1 Co 3:19 "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God". So who's side do you choose?

Comment by Natalie Davis

Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:38:47 EDT

You know what? Folks who hold whatever religious beliefs have that right. But you want to know what is unreasonable? That one particular set of religious beliefs are codified under civil -- secular -- law. You want to be reasonable? Allow churches to practice as they will, but make the law of the land treat all citizens equally in marriage. You care about families? Show that you care about families headed by gay couples. *That* would be reasonable. Love, An Activist Christian

Comment by BB

Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:20:08 EDT

Yes Jesus "hung out with ex-whores and practicing tax collectors", but he also said "go and sin no more" (John 8:11). Yes, He loved sinners, but as already stated He also hated the sin. Otherwise there would have been no need for him to die on the cross. For those who would subscribe to Phillip's dissertation, I would recommend reading Paul the Apostle's Epistles and a good place start would be 1 Co 6. It is not fair to characterize those who wish to preserve Christian values as anti-gay. Every activist Christian out there is NOT a Reverend Phelps and does not hate gay people. The gay bashers are the ones the media loves to cover because it creates controversy and sells. Just because Christians wish to preserve the family unit, or marriage as it has been known since the dawn of mankind, does NOT automatically make them gay haters or homophobics, just as every Conservative is not a fascist. Remember, the gay activists are every bit as obnoxious if not worse in their attacks on Christians or anybody else who dares not follow in line. So please, stop with the extremist slanders and be reasonable with each other.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Sun, 26 Oct 2003 00:10:36 EDT

Just saw this topic revived and thought I would address Phillip's comment #24. I spoke with Julie Millam; the most charitable thing I can say is that she is a twit. The figures she talks about concerning gay men's life expectancies comes from a discredited doctor named Paul Cameron. His "science" is thoroughly untrue and all the major medical associations have said so. The American Psychological Association dropped his membership in 1983, and Cameron has been censured by a host of reputable medical organizations. As for Exodus, yes, there are some who claim and believe that they have "changed," and those people certainly should be respected and not demeaned. But their lives have not yet ended, so who is to say what will happen to them in future? Many, many more have realized that they have not changed and can not change. And some tell horror stories about what they have experienced while in ex-gay ministry and so-called reparative therapy. Exodus, which is used as a marketing and fundraising pawn by many in the political Religious Right, routinely refuses to provide figures as to the number of people who go to the organization's affiliated ministries for help or the percentage of those who end up successful in "escaping the homosexual lifestyle." The people who end up there are people who generally come from fundamentalist families and are having difficulties reconciling who they are with the religious beliefs given to them by their families, who often are a motivating factor in sending these people to ex-gay ministries. Interestingly, Exodus has fallen on hard financial times in recent months. For more info on ex-gay ministries, you can check out my 1999 undercover investigation, The Other Side of the Rainbow. In truth, the number of ex-gay people is very, very small, and those you generally see are paid employees of ex-gay ministries or right-wing Christian fundamentalist groups. It's a crock, plain and simple. And Julie Millam of the Montana Family Council is using Exodus and discredited figures to bolster her hateful message and dangerous agenda. As I told her, she ought to be ashamed.

Comment by Dan

Sun, 26 Oct 2003 00:09:33 EDT

Sorry folks, when put in context, the statement: "A really good reality show for gay people would be five gay men dying of AIDS." is not inconsistent with "love the sinner, hate the sin." She's simply saying that TV's not giving an accurate portrayal of the gay lifestyle. She and her "ilk" think the media glorify gayishness and downplay certain tragic consequenses to the detriment of society. She's not saying she would like to see five gays die of AIDs. By "really good", she meant "accurate". Personally, I think a "really good" portrayal of gays would be going to work, eating, sleeping, T.V., sports, washing the car, you know, the same boring crap all of us do. If you would like to get a feel for where her heads at, imagine if you will: A TV show where the five central characters are a bunch of happy-go-lucky klansmen. They're warm, witty, and charming. The chics on the show love 'em, and they like to buy toys for tots at Christmas time. You know you would be outraged at a show like that. I'm not saying that she's right, just that she has the right.

Comment by Taloran

Sat, 25 Oct 2003 18:11:19 EDT

How did the message come so far afield from what Philip quoted in comment 8? It's very sad.

Comment by andy

Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:05:30 EDT

Mac, Dew, and Phillip, right on w/ all 3 of those comments.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:01:36 EDT

Apparently, Julie Millam has been slapped around a bit and told to straighten up, so she put together a very careful "clarification" of her original statement:

Montana Family Coalition has always held the position that the homosexual lifestyle should not be glamorized because it is plagued with many serious health threats to those who practice it. We feel the onslaught of television shows that promote and glamorize this destructive lifestyle are irresponsible and lead young impressionable children to wrong conclusions. Studies show that practicing homosexuality drastically shortens the lifespan of males due to HIV/AIDS. This is the "reality" that we need to portray- that sex outside of marriage is dangerous for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Montana Family Coalition is dedicated to educating people about these risks, hopefully REDUCING the number of AIDS cases. Let me be clear-I would never, ever imply that I, in any way, would enjoy seeing someone die from AIDS. That would be tragic-That would be the antithesis of our mission at MFC. Our goal is to offer hope, restoration and healing for the homosexual through EXODUS International and other ministries that help lead the way out.We love the sinner but hate the sin. Many people successfully leave this lifestyle every year. Unfortunately the "reality" of homosexuality is grave with its sexual consequences is something that we must face and then warn our children about. Our point is that "reality" TV is not reality, because it glamorizes a lifestyle and fails to warn of the grave danger people face. Whether it is "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" or "Elimidate," "Temptation Island" or any other television program that degrades abstinence and/or traditional marriage - it is offensive. People are simply fed up with this type of programming and are calling for responsible change.

This is her idea of back-pedaling, and still she sticks her foot in her mouth. I'll let Natalie pick up on the reference to Exodus if she wants to, as she has already collected a bit of material on them, but I'll just say this, again. Jesus hung out with ex-whores and practicing tax collectors, and generally bad-mouthed nearly every religious leader of His day. Judgmental words for sinners (as we all are)? Nope. He saved those for the religious leaders, too. And so I, too, following His example, reserve my scorn for those who construct what might seem like a sounds and reasonable argument against whatever, but who reveals their heart with statements like "A really good reality show for gay people would be five gay men dying of AIDS." Maybe she feels that the context she has now given justifies her earlier statement. I'm trying to picture Jesus making that statement under any circumstances. Nope.

Comment by Dew

Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:27:08 EDT

Excuse me: Bible

Comment by Dew

Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:23:33 EDT

I think that is soo cool to have a bible translator in the family. Then again I don't get out much :-) j/k I knew about the New Testament. I was mainly speaking on more of the harsh laws in the old testament when I made the copy of a copy comment. And I still hold true to that. Even if 'mankind' (only using it as an example) is the correct translated word, it does not mean it is defined the same as we know it today. Take the word gay for example, its meaning is not the same today as it was 125 years ago. I am not questioning the validity of the text, don't get me wrong. I think with any dated text you have to consider the times and then translate the moral into present day.

Comment by Mac Diva

Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:21:11 EDT

The pressure politics won't work. But, I believe some of the programs may fail on their own. 'Queer Eye' is all about novelty. Once that wears off, it will be outta here for the show. Probably will not take long. Though I hold no brief for the Christian Coalition types, I am ambivalent about that program and its premises. Several gay commentators have written about it with insight. Among the aspects that concern them is that it echoes stereotypes about what it is to be gay and what is to be straight. For example, why gays and fashion? Do the producers really believe there is a gay gene for color coordination? As I've said about TV programs featuring racial minorities, just having a minority person on television is not necessarily a victory. What the character is doing matters. (And, no, I don't mean the character's behavior must always be 'positive.' It should be realistic, though.)

Comment by andy

Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:00:52 EDT

Dew, many people have gone back to the origional Hebrew texts and translated them. MY uncle is a Bible translater himsel who while in seminary in Israel had access to the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, the New Testimant was written in Greek, not Hebrew, so translations like the New American Standard Bible would translate from both Hebrew and Greek(most modern translations do this)

Comment by Dew

Sun, 14 Sep 2003 08:57:38 EDT

Well said Eryk. Not to mention our english bible was translated from Greek translated from Hebrew. And we know what Plato says about the copy of a copy: it will always be distorted. Given that the core of the teachings are in tact, I must agree with Phillip. The Old Testament Laws were harsh but the new testament accounted for the grace. None of us are without sin. There is no point system or merit system attached to sin. Lies are no better than murder and homosexuality is no worse than fornication. We should not be pointing out the faults in others but accepting others despite them.

Comment by raj

Sun, 14 Sep 2003 06:44:40 EDT

"It really is appalling how so many Christian organizations feel that they should have a say in an adult's individual lifestyle choices." Conservative christianity is essentially social control through an induced mental disorder. The social control is the "say" that you're talking about. Conservative christianity is an induced mental disorder.

Comment by Brian Flemming

Sun, 14 Sep 2003 01:53:25 EDT

Dawn, You wrote:

The only positive thing I can think of, is that REAL Christians (the ones who believe in that whole "love thy brother" philosophy) pay NO attention to these fundamentalist whackos.

Pay no attention? How is it that the "fundamentalist whackos" of Islam rate an entire post that pretty much defines Islam by those fundamentalists, but when Christian fundamentalists of Pat Robertson's ilk (with entire TV networks, congregations in the millions and the ear of the U.S. president) spout hatred we are to "pay NO attention"? I don't get it. To remind you, here's what you wrote as you paid MUCH attention to Muslim extremists:

How can in this day and age of technology, cultural awareness, education and global media, a religion that calls itself "the religion of peace" be so violent?... WHAT IS IT KEEPING THESE PEACE LOVING PEOPLE FROM CONDEMNING THE VIOLENCE? ... What I find instead are sites dedicated to illustrating the lawlessness, misogyny, perversion, cruelty and hatred for anyone who dares defy the words of Allah and his "selected spokespersons". ... A religion of peace does not target innocent civilians; women, children, men; those whose job it is to protect and serve through bravery and courage.... Please someone tell me this is not what Allah would praise, and don't just tell me, TELL THE WORLD IN YOUR LOUDEST VOICE. We all need to know.

Instead of ignoring Christian fundamentalism, perhaps you should condemn it IN YOUR LOUDEST VOICE. As the Muslims do.

Comment by Eryk

Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:44:51 EDT

I think perhaps a bit of research should be done into the definition of "mankind" as it meant 2000+ years ago. A perfect example of misconstrued interpretation.

Comment by jason

Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:45:03 EDT

Phillip, you are a smart man and I commend you and wholeheartedly agree with what you said. There's this tendency among Christians to continually judge others when they do something wrong, and in some cases the "offending party" isn't actually doing anything wrong. How many older adults that are Christians believe that all rock music is evil even if it's Christian music. A very large percentage of them. Why? Because they are ignorant. The same reason that so many Christians express hatred towards homosexuals. It's also why there are many Christians who are racist. Stupidity and ignorance. I think I've said enough.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:33:52 EDT

And Pat Robertson is just wrong, about very nearly everything.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:18:18 EDT

Mark, you raise an important point that is probably more complex than the average BlogCritics readers wants to see addressed, but the short version is that the Levitical statements were part of the law, and as nearly all of the later verses quoted in comment #8 point out, the whole law is fulfilled in one way: loving your neighbor. The details get messy, in the sense that Jesus fulfilled the law (which is not quite the same as canceling it or doing away with it) by taking the full penalty despite never having violated it, and I don't proselytize on Blogcritics, but all of the Biblical injunctions can essentially be summed up (in my view) like this: It's wrong, just as lots and lots and lots of other things are wrong. Fortunately, Christ paid the penalty for those wrong behaviors, just as He paid for mine. Given that, the best thing I can do is to show love to everybody, to the point where people can easily see that Christ is in us as we show love. Or, in a short version: "their" blood and "their" penalty death ended up being paid by Jesus, just like mine.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:46:20 EDT

the bible is quite specific: from leviticus: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" however, tacked onto that is: ": they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." so i've always thought that people are picking and choosing their 'truth'.