Don’t let the exclamation mark fool you. This is one of my most serious posts.
A comment by the infamous Dontbia Nass left yesterday on my post on “The Serrated Edge, Purposeful Defamation, And Now The Death Prayer” troubles me deeply.
The hateful, scatological, and juvenile nature of his comment against homosexuals confirmed what I had long suspected: “Dontbia Nass” is who I thought he was, and I will immediately cease engaging with him. I have had experience with this deviant before and I’m not eager to continue dealing with him now. Sadly, he is a Wilson fan and follower living far away from Moscow, a man who prides himself on his grasp of Scripture and glories in his shame as a “Covenant” man with no evidence of any fruit of the Spirit.
He needs to understand that if he is “Dontbia Nass,” it’s over. If I’m wrong — if he’s not who I think — then he can confirm that with me by telling me where he lives, but only after an apology for the ugliness and lies in describing the perversities he delights in wrongly applying to the entire GLBT community. Even if he’s not who I think he is, he gets no response from me ’til he apologizes.
There’s another man, a local Kirker who disagrees with me on virtually everything I write but who has shown nothing but respect during our year of offline correspondence. I will call him “Barry” (don’t try to figure it out; I just came up with it) when I respond directly to something he says . . . with gratitude to him for the robust but dignified discussion we’ve been having.
Keely, as a fellow brother in Christ I would never insult you by offering you an apology for anything. Christians don’t apologize. Apologizing is the world’s sham substitute for seeking forgiveness for sin and reconciliation. If I have sinned against you I would be grateful if you would point out to me how I have sinned so that I can repent. And if I have not sinned, I would be grateful if you would examine yourself to see whether there might not be some hypocrisies and disobedience to Scripture that you might need to repent of. I want any offense to come from Scripture — the offense of the gospel — and not from my poor choice of words. It was certainly not my intention to give unnecessary offense by describing anocratism as “f*dge packing,” urolagnia as “g*lden shower,” anobrachial penetration as “f*sting,” or penosugia as “f*llatio.” Those euphemisms are widely used among the people who engage in such behaviors. The 800-page The Gay Report published in 1979 by Karla Jay and Allen Young (both homosexuals) on the nature and extent of homosexual behavior says that those particular behaviors are engaged in by 91%, 23%, 22% and 99% of male homosexuals, respectively. (To which we might add that 82% engage in anilingus.) These are hardly insignificant numbers. Statistically speaking, if you shake hands with five male homosexuals, you will have shaken hands where the sun don’t shine. Strictly factually speaking, biblically and medically, it is legitimate to describe the entire GLBT “community” as perverse and pathological. They are in direct, egregious conflict with the clearly expressed God’s will for man. Their behavior contravenes the clear, unified testimony of both God’s special revelation in the Bible from the opening of Genesis to the close of Revelation, and also general revelation through the created world (Romans 1). Yet somehow in your eyes, In the present context I certainly take it as a great honor to be labeled a “deviant” by you, although for your sake and for the sake of the homosexuals you show yourself to be a false friend to, I wish it were not so.
In your talk with Rev. Wilson on July, 11, 2006, you indicated that reasonable people could disagree on whether the Bible condemns homosexuality as it is practiced today (the “conservative” view) or is essentially silent on the subject (the “liberal” view). However, that is simply not the case. Reasonable people who are looking at the biblical text with any modicum of honesty, diligence and intellectual competence will inevitably conclude that the “conservative” view is correct. People who demur from the “conservative” view are either liars and charlatans (notwithstanding that they may be self-deceived, and therefore able to manifest all sincerity), or people who have been cowed and fear being labeled homophobes by the browbeating of the sodomite faction, or people who have not done their homework and are willing to accept an argument on the basis of another’s apparent authority. Now please note well, I disagree with you on feminism, egalitarianism and the legitimate roles of women in the church, but I readily concede that in that area you have much more of a biblical argument to work with than the homosexual apologists do. There is no comparison between the two, in terms of the ability to argue from scripture. Compared to the homosexual apologists, the feminists are building on a solid granite foundation. People who seek to justify homosexuality from the Bible (either arguing from the Bible’s alleged silence or claiming to find some positive sanction of it explicit or implicit in the text) simply do not have a leg to stand on. The hermeneutics they employ are a complete sham. Even the more honest of the homosexual theologians, such as Gary David Comstock, admit as much: he calls on gays to simply jettison the Bible as homophobic. I strongly encourage you to read the many extremely useful writings of Robert A. J. Gagnon that are available for downloading from his website, such as
http://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexNewsweekMillerResp.pdf
Comment by Dontbia Nass — July 16, 2009 @ 11:44 pm
Keely, let me quote at length what you said on July 11, 2006:
“I welcome the chance to make this point as clearly as I can and as unequivocally as I can. First of all, I believe there are essentials that Christians have to believe. I believe that a view on homosexuality is not in any way one of those essentials. I don’t believe that you are a better Christian if you hold to a more conservative view on the biblical pronouncements on homosexuality; I don’t believe that you are a worse Christian if you hold to a more liberal view on homosexuality. I believe that people who have given their lives to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are people that I am to fellowship with and call brothers and sisters. I believe that the clearest reading — the clearest, immediate, initial and apparently most evident reading — of Scripture does in fact condemn homosexual behavior. I also believe that the clearest, easiest and most accessible reading of Scripture is not always the most correct reading of Scripture. That’s why we study Scripture — we don’t just scan it. We don’t scan Scripture because sometimes it takes an awful lot of hard work to wrestle with questions like, for example, was the apostle Paul writing about a condition that we now know as homosexuality, or was he referring to homosexual relations in the context of, for example, temple prostitution? I don’t know. Greater minds than mine have wrestled with that. I do not believe that this is a fundamental issue; I welcome fellowship with anyone — heterosexual, homosexual, celibate or not — who calls Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior. I submit myself to the word of God but I do not believe that the most honoring thing to the word of God or to Christ the Savior is the easiest, most simple, most apparently clear reading of Scripture all the time. [At this point, Doug Wilson asks for a clarification, “Would you say you’re a worse Christian if you take the more conservative view?”] No, I don’t believe that. I believe, though, that if you elevate homosexuality — regardless of how you view it — and regardless of what I think of the nature of your Christianity — if you do not elevate the one thing in the Scriptures — old and new testament — we ought all to agree on — and that’s love — it is my job love and serve people. It is my job to advocate for their rights, it’s my job to serve them, it’s my job to die to self, but I am not going to break fellowship on the basis of homosexuality, conservative or liberal.”
Comment by Dontbia Nass — July 16, 2009 @ 11:45 pm
Now, I’m going on the assumption that you were entirely sincere and not attempting to deceive your listeners in your statement of July 11, 2006, but based on what you said then you have no basis for vilifying me for my statements concerning homosexuals here. Neither do you have any basis for vilifying Doug Wilson and people commenting on his blog concerning homosexuality. You yourself affirmed very clearly that a person is not a worse Christian for taking the more conservative view, and you affirmed that you would not “break fellowship on the basis of homosexuality, conservative or liberal.”
You repeatedly made mention of those homosexuals who call Christ Lord, and who have given their lives to Him. You mentioned submitting to God’s Word, and the need to die to self. Well both the word “Christ” and “Lord” clearly imply that God’s moral standards are to be normative for the Christian. Giving one’s life, submitting and dying to self all clearly imply accepting God’s moral standards as normative for the Christian. The whole issue comes down to whether God considers homosexual acts to constitute porneia forbidden under the Seventh Commandment. (Not to mention that fully 100% of all same-sex sexual relationships are entered into OUTSIDE of marriage.) The conservative view — the correct view — says that homosexual acts are inherently immoral and cannot be condoned in any Christian context. You said that you have a duty to advocate for others’ rights, but since when do people have a right to sin? In God’s eyes, a right to sin simply does not exist. Which is not to say that we are to go out and stone homosexuals or even refuse to have anything to do with them — far from it — but true Christian love dictates that we share the unvarnished truth of the gospel with them. If anyone wishes to follow Christ, let him deny himself. Let him die to his sinful desires and learn to put on Christ. That’s the sort of message that loving Christians need to tell people ensnared in any sin problem, whether it’s homosexual sin, heterosexual adultery, addiction to pornography, drug abuse, habitual stealing or lying or whatever.
Comment by Dontbia Nass — July 16, 2009 @ 11:45 pm
Most of the above was typed on the fly and I picked up a few typos in re-reading it but I trust everything is clear. I am fairly sure that I have accurately typed out everything in Keely’s statement on the radio.
Comment by Dontbia Nass — July 16, 2009 @ 11:53 pm
As soon as I figure out how, these will be deleted. Be assured that they’ll be ignored.
Keely
Comment by Keely Emerine Mix — July 17, 2009 @ 5:27 am