Pedophilia, Hedonism & Impending Confusion: Revisiting the Anti-Gay Rhetoric of Michael Brown
Pentecostal leader Michael Brown continues to throw homosexuality into the mix with an array of exotic sexual fetishes, including pedophilia, zoophilia and coprophilia, sexual arousal from human feces.
In January, we looked at Brown, the latest evangelical leader to join Love Won Out‘s roster of conference speakers. Ex-Gay Watch found Dr Brown’s rhetoric to be aggressively militaristic. Those who read the discussions here and on Warren Throckmorton‘s website will be familiar with his argument that nothing separates homosexuality from any other manner of non-conventional sexual practices.
Last week, Brown appeared on the Concerned Women for America (CWFA) radio program, alongside Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth. The subject was evangelical Wheaton College’s decision to invite left-leaning, pro-gay evangelical Jim Wallis as a speaker. Without a hint of irony, host Matt Barber condemned the decision, saying that Wallis’s views were
… unequivocally unscriptural. That’s why I have a problem. I’m all for academic freedom, but if something is just so on it’s face!
All for academic freedom, except when something is “unequivocally unscriptural.” A strange sort of academic freedom, which appears to amount to “academic freedom except when I disagree.”
Then Michael Brown entered the conversation to reiterate the same arguments he has made here on XGW and elsewhere. His contention amounts to the claim that nothing distinguishes homosexuality morally from any other sexual practice, no matter how bizarre or offensive.
No moral line between homosexuality and pedophilia
Broadening the definition of “orientation” as widely as possible, Brown asks:
Are all sexual orientations gifts from God? Zoophilia, or coprophilia, the sexual stimulation by faeces, or bestiality, I mean things that everyone would be repulsed by, or paedophilia. Are those gifts from God? … How do you distinguish which sexual orientation is a gift from God and which is not?
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
He continues:
Really, there’s no line between saying this is a gift from God and saying pedophilia’s a gift from God. Not to put the two in the same class, but to say, how do you reject anything morally any more? If I like it, if I feel good about it, it’s all about me.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Love? Respect? Fulfilment? Capacity to help and not harm? Abuse? Consent or lack of it? Ultimately, however, maybe these things are side issues to those whose morality is tied only to the authority of a single interpretation of a single holy book.
Misrepresenting gay morality
If I like it, if I feel good about it, it’s all about me. … [It's the] Will and Grace culture and the culture of If-I-feel-good-about-it-then-it’s-good.
And there you have Brown’s slanderous assessment of the morality of gays and lesbians: If it feels good, do it. In other words, gays are hedonists: they have no moral compass other than their own sense of pleasure. This is an outrageous accusation, but unfortunately a ubiquitous one.
In the discussions here and elsewhere, Brown continually argued that we as gays had no moral basis for distinguishing between homosexuality and other (supposedly) non-traditional sexual practices. On the contrary, how about the following as a list of questions I, as a gay person with a moral compass, might ask about my own sexual behaviour:
- Is it loving?
- Is it consensual?
- Is it respectful?
- Is it giving or selfish?
- Is it mutually beneficial and fulfilling or abusive and unequal?
- Does it dignify or degrade me and others as human beings?
- Does it help or hinder me in becoming a better person?
Is there something immoral in that preliminary list of criteria? Is there something lacking (other than that it might not match up to a particular religious viewpoint)? Is it any more or less moral than any other set of criteria? Does it have anything to do with Brown’s woeful caricature of gay morality as “if it feels good do it”? (If that were really the basis of my morality, at this moment I’d be out doing a hundred more exciting things than sitting here writing this article, believe me!)
The contradiction: Does Brown really not see the difference?
The big contradiction – and it’s either a logical flaw or a sign of disingenuity – is that Brown clearly does see the difference between homosexuality and other sexual practices and orientations. He first makes the outrageously offensive, albeit sadly typical connection between pedophilia and homosexuality, but then tellingly adds the caveat that he doesn’t want “to put the two in the same class.” Why? So far he has argued that there is nothing to distinguish them.
And yet something in him wants to make a distinction. Brown knows quite well that pedophilia is about control and manipulation, where homosexuality is consensual. He knows that pedophilia is abusive, where homosexuals can have adult relationships that mirror heterosexual relationships. If he really recognized no moral distinction, he would be in favour of criminalizing homosexuality. After all, we jail practicing pedophiles. We lock up people who rape animals. What’s stopping Brown from campaigning to have the gays brought to justice? (Answer: There are very obvious moral differences, which even Brown knows.)
Manufacturing a crisis
Brown ends the discussion with an overstatement that again is typical of the charged rhetoric of those who claim LGBT rights are a threat to civilization:
What about the undoing of the foundations? You undo male-female, you undo marriage, and everything is up for grabs, totally. What about the effect on the next generation that grows up with complete uncertainty about marriage, complete uncertainty about male-female? Don’t we have a responsibility in terms of justice to care about the family and the children and the next generation?
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
This has as much validity as the illogical argument that “if everyone were gay, there would be no reproduction, and the world would end.” Who suggested everyone would or should be gay? Likewise, who’s suggesting that male and female, and the concept of marriage be entirely undone? Let’s be honest: The majority of the world will carry on as they have always done. Most people know and will know with certainty whether they are male or female. Most people are and will be quite aware whether they are gay or straight. People figure these things out for themselves, and the fact that there are other people who are gay, or bisexual, or transgender, and that that is something to be respected, is not going suddenly to throw them into confusion about their own identity.
Brown and those who share his heady rhetoric of a society doomed to confusion and uncertainty are manufacturing a situation that simply does not align with the reality.
The question restated
And so Ex-Gay Watch asks once again, is this the sort of hardline political sensationalism with which Love Won Out’s allies, such as Exodus, want to be associated? Granted, it’s been the general direction of the mainstream ex-gay movement for a long time. Exodus has generally distanced itself from the ilk of Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber, with whom Michael Brown is clearly at home in his message and style. With hardliners like this coming aboard, isn’t it time the rest of the ex-gay movement took stock of where they’re headed?
It is interesting to see how he changes tactics depending on who is audience is. When he wrote in the blog you would have though he was imitating Mr. Rogers the way he wanted to come across as the “Mr. Nice Guy” for the gay community.
As a Christian I still say we are to be aware of wolves in sheep’s clothing. His rhetoric mention in this blog entry only proves to me that while he is saying “bah bah” to the gay community, at any moment he is going to try to huff and puff and blow Christ’s Church down. I pray those who encounter him have faith as sturdy as brick.
If he’s a wolf, I’m not sure about the sheep’s clothing. If I recall correctly, he said pretty much the same things here in the discussion. Certainly he used the zoophilia and pedophilia arguments several times here and on Throckmorton’s website.
Despite the disconnect (which he obviously doesn’t see) between the rhetoric of compassion and the rhetoric I analyzed above, I think he’s been pretty frank expressing both, even here on XGW.
This is a very good catch. That moment flew by me and it triggered something in me, but I couldn’t put my finger on what it was.
But in one sentence, he negated every point he had made as it pertained to homosexuality. So, somewhere inside, he knows he’s making a specious argument.
It sends the signal that anything the “homosexual” says is automatically subject to suspicion because, like these other terrible atrocities, homosexuals have no moral compass.
And, by extension, a heterosexual (Wallis) who doesn’t also treat homosexuality as “the worst thing on earth” must also be missing his moral compass.
Perhaps it’s Mr. Brown who’s missing his moral compass — or in danger of losing it. He knows there’s a difference. He just doesn’t know why.
Wouldn’t it be nice if American Christianity came from the Martin Luther King side of the family rather than the TV evangelist side?
” * Is it loving?
* Is it consensual?
* Is it respectful?
* Is it giving or selfish?
* Is it mutually beneficial and fulfilling or abusive and unequal?
* Does it dignify or degrade me and others as human beings?
* Does it help or hinder me in becoming a better person?
”
Unfortunately I’ve seen anti-gay types answers these questions this way:
“* Is it loving?” No. Two men cannot “really” love each other. Even if they say so, even if they “feel” they do, they’re just fooling themselves. It’s lust. Sometimes It’s even answered in the unintentionally lesbian-friendly remark “A woman brings love to a relationship, men don’t.”
“* Is it consensual?” People consent to doing drugs, stealing, lying, etc. Just because two people want to do something doesn’t make it right.
Either that, or they’ll make some sort of odd argument that two men cannot “truly” consent to such activities. At least not while being sane.
“* Is it respectful?” It’s disrespectful to you, your partner, and especially G-o-d.
“* Is it giving or selfish?” It’s very selfish, as it puts your lusts above God’s plan for you!
“* Is it mutually beneficial and fulfilling or abusive and unequal?” It may “appear” beneficial and fullfilling, but really it’s abusive and unequal. And even if it is beneficial and fullfilling, it is beneficial to SATAN!
“* Does it dignify or degrade me and others as human beings?” A man replacing a woman in the bed is degrading himself. This also degrades little girls because since their purpose is to be a baby-making machine, they will be taught that they might not be able to fulfill that purpose because their destined husband might be gay. Oh the horror!
“* Does it help or hinder me in becoming a better person?” Again, you may think it does but….
I noticed this especially in the Peterson Tascano interview/debate in another post. It’s funny, when a christian finds Jesus, and stops drinking, or smoking, or cheating on their spouse, the clouds part, the angels sing, they get better jobs, promotions, win the lottery, loose weight, fight off cancer, their wrinkles disappear, they feel full of the holy spirit and everything is just so warm, fuzzy, and wonderful. They toss this out as proof that Jesus has fixed them, changed their lives. Yet when Peterson says the same thing about accepting himself as a gay man they go….”well, it may seem that way….. but really it’s not.”
So, God rewards you with a better life if you come to some sort of epiphany, even if it’s for the wrong reasons and in the wrong direction?
Perhaps others have noticed that Mr. Brown suffers from a tendency to act from a principle that we might call, “If it feels good say it,” especially if it pleases his primary audience. That this leads him to lie a lot is not a problem for him if the lies are what the troops want to hear. Meanwhile there is the matter of being obsessed with taking up peoples’ time by pretending to debate them as demonstrated in the flood of words on this blog last month. I would tend to see these behaviors as outside the traditional listing of the “fruits of the Spirit.”
Very good point, Jason. I saw a comment over at PomoProphet’s blog that demonstrated this. Pomo commented that the people over at GCN seemed more well adjusted than most of the ex-gays he’d met over the years (he was very a part of ex-gay circles for a while). So, instead of taking that at face value, several commenters tried to convince him that they just thought they were better adjusted.
I simply can’t see why anti-gay folks would think it is ok to watch a person wallow in self-pity and essentially live a life that is characterized by depression, self-hate, etc. Not to say that all ex-gays or closeted gays live that life, but those that do are still encouraged to hide their feelings, even if their lives spiral downward.
On a personal note, I can say my own life in the closet was never as bad as what I describe above, but my coming out has certainly allowed me to be the person I know I should be. Being in the closet did nothing but bring pain, deception, and a closed heart to me. I can’t see how people argue in favor of something like that.
Jonathan has nailed what’s happening:
Brown projects his own amoral “feel good” ethic onto others. I would go further: Brown projects his own obsession with sexual deviation onto innocent people. He enjoys doing it, he gets paid to lie, and he is applauded by apostate churches for his affirmation of their hypocrisy.
When I was having a discussion with him on Warren’s blog he seemed compassionate, but after hearing more about what he has to say regarding homosexuality, I’m floored. I feel like someone just threw a glass of ice cold water in my face. What was I thinking. This man is never going to understand gay people, and what’s worse, he’s going to use this inflammatory rhetoric to try and prevent gay people from having equal rights.
And he wonders why people wouldn’t want to sit down to dinner with him – Yikes.
If he cannot distinguish to difference between two people who love each other and wish to build a life together, and a man who has sex with a dog, a corpse, or a child, then HE HAS NO MORAL COMPASS WHATSOEVER.
End of story.
It would suggest from everyone’s experiences with Michael Brown that we should discontinue any discussion with him now and in the future. It’s futile to have any meaningful or worthwhile intercourse with him.
Teehee.
…sorry.
Maybe it’s silly of me to nit-pick definitions and word-use, but why is he using the term “orientation” to describe sexual fetishes? I’m not trying to imply that fetishes are bad in and of themselves, but a fetish is not a sexual orientation. I can’t decide if he does this intentionally to help the effectiveness of his rhetoric, or if he really doesn’t know the difference between a coprophilliac’s (sp?) orientation and their fetish.
Christopher, I did deliberately draw attention to that in the article:
It was certainly very insidious, and certainly quite at odds with popular definition of “orientation”. However, I didn’t want to go too deeply into it in the article, as I am not familiar enough with academic definitions of the word, some of which might well include fetishes as well as what people generally refer to as orientations. Brown definitely uses that haziness of meaning to his advantage.
Jason D,
What matters is not that gays are right, but that you clearly can be gay and still be acting out of solid moral principles. Brown might not agree with the criteria I mentioned (and I’m sure neither he nor those like him do), but he can’t deny that they are moral criteria and they do exist. It’s simply disingenuous for him to claim that being gay means you’ve no moral basis.
Dave, you are more generous in your assumptions than I am. I do not think that this indicates any hesitation on the part of Brown or any uncertainty in his thinking.
He’s simply playing a rhetorical game.
He knows that a comparison to pedophilia is a conversation stopper. He knows that most Americans, and indeed most Christians, do not accept the lumping of the two together as a valid argument.
But he wants to make that lumping together, all the same. He just doesn’t want to lose his audience. He wants to say that homosexuality is in all manners equal to pedophilia, but he wants an out. He wants to be able to say, “I didn’t compare the two”.
Or so it seems to me. I suspect Dr. Brown will be along shortly to tell us that I’m quite wrong.
Brown does seem to pander, in the truest sense of the word.
Since no one has yet stated the obvious (that I’ve noticed), I guess I will. None of the above list are exclusively, or even mostly, gay phenomena. One can practice zoophilia, coprophillia or bestiality homosexually or heterosexually. The fact that these are things practiced by heterosexuals as well, by Browns line of reason, means that “everyone would be repulsed by” heterosexuality because of what some heterosexuals do. Taking that ‘logic’ further, Brown should also ask if heterosexuality is a “gift from God.”
What Timothy said
Dave is nothing if not polite – I think it’s the British in him – but he is quite thorough. I, too, have a less complimentary view of Brown. Perhaps some of it is my Pentecostal background as there were so many in that crowd who had the same focus on themselves. It was like the circus came to town every time one would come to speak. Brown reminds me of that a lot.
That aside, does anyone have an opinion about why he seems so intent on these “debates” he puts on? Nothing about the man brings me to assume he actually wants an exchange of ideas, so I’m left wondering what they are for. It is clear he loves to hear himself talk, so that’s one possibility. He also loves to manipulate the discussion, so a staged debate is a great opportunity for that.
Homosexuality, ex-gays, et al, would seem to be his next big thing, so perhaps these seemingly magnanimous debates are a good way to get on the map with Focus and friends, while dazzling the anti-gay crowd to gain a reputation in that venue. I’m sure it will become more obvious as time goes on. Historically, Brown is never satisfied with only one or two pieces of the pie. I hope Focus realizes that.
Your comment points in a very plausible direction, David. It reminds me of John Briggs, he of the famous initiaive to bar gay peole from teaching in California 30 years ago. I remember listening to him once, and he said something along these lines– i don’t remember the exact words.
“Sir, how would you feel about it if your son was using a public restroom and some homosexual came along and put his penis in your son’s mouth?”
I’m not kidding. There it was. So many implications, questions, surprises, fascinations– you name it. There was one thing that was very clear to me. Mr. Briggs liked nothing so much as talking dirty about homosex. Funny, i can’t imagine me making such a statement in public, and I’m a Really Big Fag.
David,
I agree with you that Brown seems to be angling for something. He is working hard to increase his profile, and I would guess that he is looking to fill part of the vacuum at the top of the Religious Right. Fallwell is dead, Dobson seems on the way out, Robertson was always a loon, but it is so much more obvious as he ages. And nobody stand out right now as a national figure that can command the attention of all the Religious Right factions.
I think he wants to become the next Fallwell. The previous Fallwell promoted himself by attacking and maligning gay people, and Brown is doing the same thing.
I do hope that he doesn’t come back to this list to go on and on and on about how he isn’t a hateful bigot. We’ve already endured enough of his rhetoric.
We are keeping an eye on him
I’ve been reading some archived newspaper articles from NC where he seems to have first practiced his anti-gay shtick in earnest. He definitely wants to give the impression that, “look see we are doing this great thing to reach out and the gays hate us for it,” referring to a series of debates juxtaposed against an HRC fund raising dinner. It’s all very passive-aggressive, and I think that goes hand-in-hand with the deception.
The fact that he has so quickly cozied up to characters like Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera is very telling. No one who genuinely wanted to reach out to gay people would have anything to do with hacks like them. It’s all “how quickly can I be schmooze into this gig.” I’m sure he thinks himself clever, and he’s right.
Dave, ah, I missed that when I first read your post, sorry. Thanks for said post, by the way
Yeah, I agree there’s definitely that aspect of it. He knows he can’t get away without the caveat. But on the other hand, it’s just so blindingly obvious that adult homosexual relationships are on a totally different moral level from pedophilia that I guess I have a hard time believing he doesn’t know deep down that equating the two is nonsense.
I think my Pentecostal background has the opposite effect on me in some ways. I can appreciate how someone like Brown can believe and say hideous things and genuinely not realize how hateful they are being. I was there for a long time myself.
Having said that, being polite is one thing, but if I ever come off as squeamishly passive-aggressive, don’t hesitate to tell me. I’ve worked hard to overcome that. (Go read this and this that I wrote in 2005, and feel free to hold me to it in future debate!)
Isn’t the Brown writing a book on teh ghey?
He might just be prepping for the world book tour.
That, and positioning himself for a semi-permanent gig with the Focus types, as a man of gravitas, an’ stuff.
My favorite quote of Brown’s is
Sorta like, “I’m not comparing Michael Brown to Fred Phelps. I am simply raising a question of cultural activism.”
You get to say it, make the comparison, leave the connection in the listener’s mind… and still pretend to take the high road.
Oh, and guys… Michael Brown is nowhere near as slick and clever as he thinks he is.
I find the man just plain icky.
I agree with all the other thoughts, just thought I’d add that one since it hasn’t been said yet.
Bring it home, Pam!
I object to the article referring to pedophilia as a “fetish.” It’s not. Sex with children is no more a fetish than rape is.
Timothy Kincaid said…
It seems to me that the justification for such absurd comparisons (child rape, murder, stealing, etc.) is in their minds, legitimate.
We don’t just “commit the crime” of homosexuality, we accept and approve of it.
In their minds, we want to be accepted for not understanding that what we’re doing is wrong.
Therefore, we are at anytime capable of not knowing the difference between right and wrong.
Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to compare us with others who “approve of sin,” like murderers, rapists, thieves, etc.
So the comparison would seem not to be with other sins, but with the sin of the approval of sin.
No doubt that these comparisons are hateful and intentionally malicious. I just think that-that may be the “logic” they use to avoid realizing so.
Narc,
Actually, I think it is classified as a paraphilia. I suppose it would be most accurate to change it to say “exotic sexual fetishes and paraphilias,” though I imagine the point comes through pretty clearly in the post as is.
Michael the Icky, Pam? No… he is just another Porno Pete. Hey, I am not putting them together ‘in the same class’… I am just not lumping them for the sake of lumping them together, so I can confuse myself and my audience to earn political points…. ; )
Mr. Brown said:
Simple for Christians. We look to our leader, Christ, for that answer. We also seek out guidence from the Holy Spirit. We also use our God-given reason.
Perhaps for Mr. Brown there is no line, but our God-given reason helps us to understand that there is a line between homosexuality and pedophilia.
That “if-I-feel-good-about-it-then-it’s-good” culture, in many parts of the world is called “The American Culture,” at least my relatives in Mexico will say that. But any culture on any part of the planet can be victim to such a culture. But to say that homosexuality is a “feel-good therefore it must be right” culture is an insult to Gay Christians and those who are in agreement that Gay Christians have a place at the Lord’s table. Our commitment to God, ourselves, and our partners is not about “feeling good.” Faith is not about emotions; it is about our commitment to God and to others. I can say with assurance that the majority of Gay Christians have had to truly come to a spiritual and intellectual reconciliation between their faith and their sexuality, and that the emotional turmoil was anything but a “feel-good” experience. Only when we finally accepted ourselves as God already has have we had our emotions change from that of deep loathing depression to one of assurance and hope. And our belief that God is a loving God who accepts us as we are is a spiritual event. Our emotions will certainly fall into play within the spiritual event, but we don’t base our morality or faith on those emotions rather the spiritual epiphany that God loves us for who and what we are.
What I notice about Brown’s technique (not unlike many like him) is that he asks questions NOT so someone will answer him, but so that HE will provide the answer and then everybody listening is supposed to give a big “AMEN” to everything that flies out of his lips. The above quote is one such example.
For him, it appears he won’t see the harm he does and never take responsibility for it.
Actually Michael Brown gives me the impression he is desperate. But I do not get what is he desperate about. Somehow I feel he seems to know the directions he is taking is extremism, but he gladly revels in it. Or is he confused puppet by some organization? I find it weird.
Yuki, please, no matter how distasteful someone might be, let’s stay away from the derogatory nicknames.
David, however offensive that may sound, I am just stating a point how easy it is to lump a single entity into ‘a box of derogatory labels’ the same way we are lumped by them. It is in no way a personal attack on both of them. We at the least knows our moral values and able to separate our orientations with deviant sexuality; but since Mr. Brown wishes to willingly associate himself with LaBarbera, is he not already choosing to concede his own moral values and lumping his rhetoric identity to match his notorious ally’s? However, if you still take offence to that, then I apologize only to you ; )
It’s not that I take offense, but the nature of the dialog at XGW means that we have to avoid some of those pet names that people have developed. The point you were making about lumping Brown in with LaBarbera seems valid, just try to avoid things like “porno Pete” if possible. The line is hard to draw after it gets started, so we try to avoid it entirely.
There are other things to consider, for example many people read XGW at work and a word like “porno” is very likely to get the site blocked (which is worse since now I’ve used it again, lol). We will have to put up some basic rules of etiquette sooner or later, we are way behind on that.
The nature of each site is different.
Okay David… I will do my best to remember to activate some personal censorship on any sensitive words… Is P***o Pete permissible?…. ; )
David Roberts:
That’s good to know.
I’m often wrought with angst when It comes to my own self censorship here. But fortunately, your guys’ admonishments continue revolve in the back of my head:
-Be Civil
-Cite sources
-On topic
-No gratuitous use of cuss words, etc.
Not that I measure up, or that all those things should necessarily be hard and fast rules, but I think they’re important structural goals.
They’re simple rules, but they are specific. And just knowing about them has a residual effect, at least it has for me. And likewise, the goal of course being, not needing to enforce them in the first place.
But all that’s off topic, and like I said, OT is one of those definite no-no’s. So screw me ribald, I can’t even comment on rules without breaking them. Apparently that’s how evil my acceptance of my homosexual condition has become – I am no longer afraid of the God who loathes me. Booga Booga no longer, I am free!
–
So I guess some sort of statement on religion too might also be helpful.
I cannot agree MORE, Ben.
It boggles the mind that these folks cannot tell the difference between these things.
“If it’s okay for two men to marry, then why not a man and an oven mitt??”
A) That’s ridiculous.
B) There is a difference between an oven mitt and a man, if I have to list those differences for you, than it is YOU who needs help, not me.
Thanks jason, but what about a woman and a Romney Mitt?
Actually, I think it is more “If-I-feel-good-about-it-then-it’s-good-but-if-I-get-caught-I’ll-just-blame-drugs/alcohol-and-go-to-rehab” culture. For a recent example, check out the resignation of the Texas prosecutor who argued the losing side of Lawrence v. Texas after his adultery was exposed.
LOL, you did better in one post than I’ve been able to in a year. I hate to think of anyone “wrought with angst” over this stuff. Thanks for bearing with us
I love coming here and reading these posts. Michael Brown was here, and left in a huff.
He was up against some FORMIDABLY intelligent and morally grounded people up in here. Because HE did’nt think so coming in, IS his problem and more fool him.
And he is one of a legion that can’t believe they can be outclassed by someone gay.
Love and that number 2 commandment would have given him the insight and courage to examine all of us further.
But see, he’s using his certainty like a drug unto itself. He’s addicted and can’t give it up. Certainty feels good and uncertainty can be very uncomforatable.
He would have been better off had he approached this forum with:
‘Hi…my name is Michael…and I’m a certainty-holic…’
But you know…the first step is admitting it :0 P
What I find so interesting about Mr. Brown, and those who adhere to the same type of theology, is how much it is about CONTROL. You’d think the 1980 hit by the Motels “Total Control” would be a hymn for them…”And I’d sell my soul for total control over you.” They so much want to have control over their surroundings (i.e. their towns, cities, states, and country) and they want so much to control their children’s lives that it is so obessive.
They even control God by using Scripture as a means to box Her in.
They also have a strange way of explaining sin and how they no longer do so, or if they do sin, they tend to blame their environment and society for it. And of course, for them, homosexuality was the cause for every calamity to occur on the planet.
I guess that explains why they don’t have a Confiteor in their worship services. They would never admit to any wrong doing. No “mea culpa” in their theology. And they did have a Confiteor, they would most likely strike the breast of the people next to them saying “Vestrum culpa” (your fault).
And it’s nice to have knowledge of Scripture and Tradition and the like, but it is to make one humble not proud. And it is to make our love for God grow and our love for one another grow as well. As St. Paul said, “If I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.”
As far as I am concerned, the “Love Won Out” should be renamed to reflect its true nature, “Love RAN Out.”
Regan DuCasse Said:
I have to concur, I was impressed with the consistent intensity of smackdown logic and truth in so many, if not almost every post in that thread.
I’m going to leave it at that, otherwise this will turn into an essay.
P.S.
That’s perfect. And I for one would have welcomed him and said: “Hi Michael.”
Alan S, said…
And with “God” as one’s ego … now that’s a fickle god to attend to.
As evidenced by their obsessive need to control, it fits perfectly as to how truly faithless they are. One shouldn’t need to point to years of study of human books if one truly knows-communion with their source.
No matter how accurate one’s “study” of history may be, to need use it as evidence against a third party, is still to use third party evidence against another third party. Effectively invalidating participation in, whilst still giving life to the argument itself. That seems to be Brown’s forte’.
I had a thought along those lines. If Satan made me do it, doesn’t that mean that my free will was suspended? At that point, I truly would be absolved of responsibility for my actions.
I’m essentially contending that I have no need to take responsibility for my actions because
God had no controlof Satan’s power to suspend my own free will? Free will being the one thing necessary to justify the condemnation of sin.How convenient, and faithless. At that point, why bother believe in a God who imbued us with the ability to choose right from wrong?
Of course. By not physically reflecting “God’s
procreative intent,” we necessarily embody Satan’s destructive intent, in 3D. But saying so outright doesn’t behoove theircontrolpolitical intent. Much better to point to Paul in Romans and let the chips fall where they may …knowing full well where they may.But when they die and get to God, they can always say Satan made them do it:
Well, to each their own
Hey! It is Tuesday night and it would seem that we have no word from Mr. Brown, not the slightest bit of Brownian Motion, at all. I am very positively impressed that XGW bloggers gave him such a burn that he has not been back, or at least, will not admit to it. Perhaps he is observing Lent by spending the season lashed to a large rock on a desert island somewhere off the Greek coast, waiting for an eagle to come by and try to take out a piece of his liver.
Good grief, that’s rather bizarre imagery.
I realize you are probably joking, but the intention has never been to beat up on him. However, if he found the audience difficult to manipulate, I would consider that a compliment. I suspect at this point he simply has nothing to gain by commenting and/or he thinks the only reason we talk about him is to bait him. I’ve found the latter to be a common assumption by a number of the really staunchly anti-gay crowd.
One thing is certain, there is a lot less textual flotsam in the threads without his input.
David Roberts, where’s your classical education? Jonathan Justice’s “bizarre imagery” describes the punishment Zeus inflicted on Prometheus for bringing humans the gift of fire.
Michael Brown may view his own efforts as Promethean–to bring light and warmth to us poor misguided gays suffering in what he considers darkness. But in reality he offers the inverse of enlightenment.
I vaguely remembered the story, but I don’t get the connection to Brown or the prior thread. It seems rather bizarre imagery for this discussion.