Revoice Conference Real Quotes vs. A Future Revoice Conference Fake Quotes

Here is a sampling of some of the main speakers at the looming Revoice conference regarding their thoughts on whether their homosexual desires are sinful or not, or rather, whether they really struggle with them. Following the italicized quote I have interjection in standard type the same sentiment but only as related to a sexual perversion that has not yet become acceptable to the “Christian” mind. The purpose for doing so is to expose the fact that these quotes being found acceptable proves that the larger Christian public has already accepted the normalcy of sodomy. This is proven by the fact that the inserted fake quotes created by me would find Christians being morally repulsed. Keep in mind that all these italicized quotes are from speakers who would label themselves, “Gay but celibate.” The point in the varied italicized quotes is that homosexual desires are perfectly fine as long as those desires are not followed through to become live physical same-sex engagement. The point in the varied non italicized quotes is to demonstrate how much homosexuality has been accepted by demonstrating how the same sentiment as applied to some other heretofore  agreed upon perverted sexual desire would leave Christians with a moral sense of unease.

“I really think the most important thing is, I really like being gay and I really like being Catholic” ~Eve Tushnet

“I really think the most important thing is, I really like being a necrophiliac and I really like being Catholic.” – Evelyn Nettush

“I believe my same-sex attractions are broken, but I do not believe they are sinful. It is not a sin for me to be attracted to another man, in the same way it is not sinful for you (a man) to be attracted to a woman.” ~Stephen Moss, Organizer of Revoice

I believe my animal-sex attractions are broken, but I do not believe they are sinful. It is not sinful for me to be attracted to an animal, in the same way it is not sinful for you (a man) to be attracted to a woman.  -Steven Mossberg

 “Simply experiencing attraction to the same sex (or being gay) is not in itself a morally culpable sin.” ~Nate Collins

“Simply experiencing attraction to dead bodies (or being necrophiliac) is not in itself a morally culpable sin.” -Tom Collins

“SSA can be a product of the Fall—like blindness—and yet not be a morally culpable sin.” ~Preston Sprinkle

“Coprophilia attraction can be a product of the fall — like blindness — and yet not be a morally culpable sin.”  – T. Inkle Sprinkle

“I do not believe homosexuality in itself is a sin as that would imply our basic human desires for things such as intimacy and beauty would be inherently sinful.” ~Jeb Ralston

“I do not believe bestiality in itself is a sin as that would imply our basic human desires for things such as intimacy and beauty would be inherently sinful. -Deb Ralston Purina

“My main worry with some of the “renunciation” and “surrender” and “death to self” language that Christians use in relation to homosexuality is that, for most people, it will end up implying that we believe all aspects of “being gay” are sinful. This is a devastating burden for many same-sex attracted Christians to bear” ~Wesley Hill

“My main worry with some of the “renunciation” and “surrender” and “death to self” language that Christians use in relation to fang bang is that, for most people, it will end up implying that we believe all aspects of “being a fang bang” are sinful. This is a devastating burden for many fang bang attracted Christians to bear.”- Jon Wesley

Again, the point in contrasting these real quotes in relation to a long acknowledge sexual perversion in conjunction with fake quotes in relation to long acknowledge sexual perversion is to shock the reader who thinks the real quotes are reasonable into seeing that the reason that they see the real quotes as reasonable is that they have already accepted, in principle, how reasonable same sex attraction is.

For a far more erudite discussion of the problems with “Gay Christianity” and the Revoice Conference see,

Full Homosexual Inclusion in the PCA?

Durkheim on the Criminal … McAtee on Durkheim

“Nothing is good indefinitely and without limits. The authority which the moral consciousness enjoys must not be excessive, for otherwise no one would dare to attack it and it would petrify too easily into an immutable form. For it to evolve, individual originality must be allowed to manifest itself. But so that the  originality of the idealist who dreams of transcending his era may display itself, that of the criminal, which falls short of the age, must also be possible. One does not go without the other.

Nor is this all. Beyond this indirect utility, crime itself may play a useful part in this evolution. Not only does it imply that the way to necessary changes remains open, but in certain cases it also directly prepares, for these changes. Where crime exists, collective sentiments are not only in the state of plasticity necessary to assume a new form but sometimes it even contributes to determining beforehand the shape they will take on. Indeed, how often is it only an anticipation of the morality to come, a progression towards what will be!”

Emile Durkheim
The Rules of Sociological Method

What the famous sociologist Durkheim is saying here is that crime is necessary because the criminal is pointing the way forward to a new social order morality that is evolving via the criminal. The criminal by his abandoning and violating the law is the evolutionary precursor of the law to come.

Now apply this thinking to sodomy. 60 years ago sodomy was universally outlawed. Sodomites stayed in the closet for fear of penalty. But Durkheim’s humanist methodology was followed and looking back we see that the sodomite of 1958 was really, in fact, the precursor to the new morality we have today. But this new morality also makes for a new criminality as well as a new morality. If the sodomite is going to come out of the closet then the Christian, who still operates by God’s morality, and so consistent with God’s Word warns against the perils of sodomy will be the one who has to go into the closet that the sodomite came out of with the new morality.

Understand also that for Durkheim it is not God’s standard of right and wrong — of legal and illegal — that is the standard for law keeping and morality. Instead, the standard is the general phenomenon of observed behavior. That general phenomenon of observed behavior becomes the new normal and as the standard is merely the general phenomenon of observed behavior any new general phenomenon of newly observed behavior by the criminal class, as practiced in abundance, is a reason to shift the definition of law and morality so that the criminal is no longer criminal.

Clearly what Durkheim is giving us here is an evolutionary morality that redefines itself by the perceived majority report. When enough men, at the same time, together do what is right in their own eyes, then that is right, whatever the perverse or sordid behavior. Crime today then is merely a social evolutionary experimentation which has within itself the wherewithal to vanquish obsolete Christian morality.

Let’s breakdown Durkheim’s first paragraph more closely,

1.) “Nothing is good indefinitely and without limits. The authority which the moral consciousness enjoys must not be excessive, for otherwise no one would dare to attack it and it would petrify too easily into an immutable form

Response

a.) However, it appears that it is good indefinitely and without limit to believe that nothing else except that statement itself is good indefinitely and without limits.

b.) By what standard does Durkheim arrive at this conclusion? By what authority am I to believe that “Nothing is good indefinitely and without limits?” Wouldn’t it be easy to demonstrate that not stealing what legitimately belongs to my neighbor is something good indefinitely and without limit? Wouldn’t it be easy to demonstrate that the prohibition to pedophilia is something good and without limit? Durkheim gives an assertion here but it is only an assertion that has not sustainable authority backing it up.

c.) Clearly, Durkheim’s authority which his moral consciousness is enjoying is excessive. We can easily see that Durkheim’s moral relativism has indeed petrified easily into an immutable form. Where are those who are attacking Durkheim’s moral relativism arguing for a morality standard which grows out of the soil of God’s Word?

For Durkheim, the criminal is the evolutionary signpost of where social order morality is headed. In this mentality, it is easy to understand why criminals are often treated so lightly. If the criminal is the harbinger of our future morality then the criminal should be sympathized with and indeed, even perhaps seen as a noble savage.

 

God Sits In Heaven And Laughs

Our God sits in heaven and does laugh
At the wicked who will one day be chaff
At the open revolt raised on the  earth
Like a wine that fills Him with mirth
So to Him are the rebellious riffraff

God laughs at Sunday worship miscue
At minister’s contradictory spew
Each Lord’s Day is comedy hour
An insult to His Omnipotent power
He belly laughs over the humanist stew

Then there is the innovative R2K mess
A reinterpretation of what we confess
The Federal Vision and NPP theories
God’s laughter makes Heaven cheery
Heaven giggles at the neo-Marxist abscess

There is a divine deafening guffawing roar
That makes the heaven’s martyr heart soar
God views the rebel practice of “wedding”
Divinity howls at two male outlets a-bedding
It’s God’s own jester and troubadour corps

Excuse God when He giggles and is snickering
As He follows the transgender pronoun dickering
Ze, hir and Zir gives God the side-splitting bends
His laughter rebounds to all of earth’s ends
There’s something funny about LGBTQ bickering

God considers the doings of the rebel hoi polloi
The academic and professorial girls and boys
He considers their serious “social sciences”
Psychology, sociology and  humanist appliances
And God continues to delight in His laughter and joy

So heaven laughs at the wicked who scheme
Cherubim and Angels also enjoy the comedic theme
God laughs with His righteous who see
How proper it is to join the Divine Comedy
Laughing till the end of the rebel’s dark dream

On Pit-bulls and Love

Recently, I experienced all the joy of being attacked by a pit-bull and the subsequent delight of recovering from a significant dog bite. The whole experience got me thinking about the modern idea of “love” vis-a-vis an older idea of love. Allow me to explain.

A couple of days after the event I was contacted by the area Animal Control people who informed me that the dog would not be put down. Initially, I was good with that since I know the animal in question is a pet to some young children who doubtlessly love the animal. Having been a child once (it’s true… really) and having loved my own pets when a child I know that I would not have wanted my pet put down upon an incident that my parents told me was “not typical for the dog.” (Something I was told immediately after the incident by the owners while I sat dazed on the road.)

This is the love of seen consequences. I have compassion for the children (no, I don’t have any compassion for the criminal dog) and out of that compassion, I don’t want to see their feelings hurt.

However, this could also be called hatred in terms of unseen consequences of my agreeing to a lenient approach with the animal in question. The neighborhood that I live in, and where this happened is teeming with children. My agreement for lenient treatment for this animal, while putatively loving to its owners (the seen consequence) is potentially hateful to the next child or person who is attacked and bitten by the dog. My leniency has the consequence of endangering some unseen future person who could share my fate since I was so full of compassion for the children for whom the dog was a pet. I’ve had compassion for the children at the expense of showing a lack of compassion for some future child or person. If somebody else is bitten by this creature, you can be sure I am going to be kicking myself for being so “nice.” This thought has grown exponentially in my musings when I learned the data showing that nearly two-thirds of all dog-bite fatalities come from pit-bulls and this in spite of their only comprising six percent of America’s dog population.

Now, enlarge this idea on a grander scale and see the impact of this. For years we practiced a love wherein we thought about the unseen consequences. For example, in our social order and culture, for years if a young woman was pregnant out of wedlock, she would disappear from school and perhaps be sent to some relative who lived away from the community in question. Help could still be expected but it would help via the back door and not the front door. We look back on that now and think about how unloving that action was and we do so because we have forgotten the love that was being shown to other young ladies who were not pregnant and who may be less likely to engage in the behavior that resulted in the social ostracism of one of their friends. Like my action with the pit-bull which bit me, we are “loving” according to seen consequences and not loving according to unseen consequences.

Today, we don’t do anything to communicate such an action as a taboo because to do so would not be “loving,” just as my not wanting to put the dog that bit me down was loving to one party but unloving to some potential future person.

Love is seldom a zero-sum game. When we offer some version of love to one person we see we very often deprive love to some person who is unseen and not being taken into consideration. When we offer “love” by not visiting capital crimes with capital punishment we show “love” to the criminal but we withhold our love to God and the victim’s family. When we offer “love” to the illegal alien by the spending of our non-infinite nation’s resources we are with-holding our love to the citizen. And when I show love to the children of the pit-bull, I may well be showing a lack of love to the next person who may well be mauled more than I was.

 

Rev. Mika Edmondson On the Need For Nations and Ethnicities

Recently Rev. Mika Edmondson, a non-caucasian minister in Grand Rapids, Michigan tweeted out below on Twitter. He makes many of the same points that I was attempting to make in my post here,

http://ironink.org/?paged=2

I’m glad to see another minister making the same argument. I do hope he isn’t called a “white supremacist” for making these points as I was for making many of the same points.

Rev. Edmondson writes,

“Colorblind theology denies 

1. God’s promise to Abraham that “in you all the nations shall be blessed”(Gen18:18)

2. The Father’s promise to the Son that “I will make you a light to the nations”(Is.49:6)

3. The Spirits promise to us that “all the peoples will praise God” (Ps 67:5) 

4. Christ’s great commission to disciple the nations.

5.The Spirit’s work to prepare us for a multi-ethnic table. In Acts 10, the Lord prepares Peter with a vision, not only to preach to Gentiles but to accept them as clean/equals in Christ.

6. One of the main tenets of the historic Christian faith as outlined in the Apostles’ Creed. “I believe in the holy Catholic Church” Catholicity means precisely the opposite of colorblindness, celebrating the inclusion of all ethnicities in Christ.

7. Christ’s power to heal racial divisions, disparities, and injustices by ignoring their ongoing impact Colorblind theology undermine unity in the church by refusing to acknowledge significant ethnic differences or address significant problems.

8. Christ’s command to neighbor love by refusing to see or love others in their cultural particularity. It suggests there is nothing about the culture of its neighbor to really see or appreciate.”