David Kyle Foster, who first posted this video on YouTube, pushes Gagnon videos on his website. And of course, he's yet another "ex-gay" who blames homosexuality for the same-sex trauma he experienced as a boy. He also blames it for his drug addiction, sex addiction, and steak fat addiction. He probably sat in a dark room thinking what else he could pin on homosexuality (this one makes the fantastic claim that 85% of lesbians come from abuse, to all gay men have an "arrested emotional development" because "not one of them had a loving father"). I don't know what it is, but ex-gays either come off as creepy, fanatical, or feign this hyper-happiness with glassy eyes like they're in a cult. David falls in the first category.
Since Foster will delete any dissenting view or negative comment on all of his YouTube comments (I believe he's literally checking comments on a daily basis and is ready and waiting with his trigger finger on the delete button), I thought I'd bring Gagnon here.
Gagnon pulls the same stunt on his own YouTube channel with even a little length of a refutation. Gagnon also refuses to debate the audience with any type of Q&A after one of his speaking engagements because he's a control freak in a debate setting.
[Updated: Someone contacted me and stated Gagnon will answer little questionnaire cards submitted by the audience, cards he can either reject or accept as long as they don't talk, but this is very different with having a dialogue back and forth with someone in the audience who can point out the contradictions and errors of what he's saying after he's said them.]
On my site, and also in my social media postings, I've pointed out the error that's the "moral, ritual and ceremonial" paradigm enough to what's being presented by Gagnon here (the ancient Israelites never divided their Laws in this manner. The "3 Parts" was a Christian invention in the Westminster Confession of 1646). The man thinks Paul speaks from the center of these Old Testament prohibitions with almost everything he wrote, as if the old Pharisee Saul didn't really completely die to the Law, but still makes a guest appearance from time to time. He misses the very core message of Paul who said the old prohibitions are dead to us and ignores Paul saying in 2 Corinthians; "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" and again in Romans; "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." It's re-stated in Acts: "Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?" And in Hebrews, "The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless." "The law is only a shadow, not the realities themselves."
Even the ancient Jews believed the new "Messianic Torah" would replace their written Torah ("All the books of the prophets (Nevi’im) and all the Holy Writings (Kesuvim) will be dissolved in the days of the Messiah (Mashiach)." Hilchos Megillah v'2:18. "The Torah that a person learns in this present age is trifling compared to the Law of the Messianic King." Koheles Rabah 11:8).
Homosexuality was never 'absolutely' proscribed in the New Testament. You have the homosexuality entwined with idolatry in Romans 1 where Paul patterns his sin list in Romans from other idolatry vice lists popular in his day, from Deuteronomy that mirrors Romans word for word, and from the Apocrypha "Book of Wisdom." Paul only spoke on homosexuality through the narrow lens of idolatry, shown by me, with Gagnon taking these examples to make a blanket statement on homosexuality using clever and deceptive hermeneutics tricks and I already brought up Gagnon's error of seeing homosexuality as being equal to exploitive homosexuality, so I don't need to go further with correcting this view he continues with now and later in the video with his interpretation of "arsenokoites" that's easily refuted also by me, yet to be refuted by any historian or scholar.
This is a perfect example of Gagnon's "half-readings," which I first brought up in my critique of his book. He quotes extensively from David F. Greenberg's book, "The Construction of Homosexuality" (a book I've also read) in his book. Greenberg gives an exhaustive narrative of homosexuality through the ages as a practice without condemning comment or consequence, all documented by Greenberg, all deliberately left out by Gagnon (Gagnon also goes to William Loader as the authority on sexual ethics of the ancient Judeo-Christian world, who by the way, advocates for same-sex unions today).
Gagnon brings up his two children and what they KNOW is wrong, and equates that with how we are supposed to feel about homosexuality; we should KNOW it's wrong. Gagnon believes so strongly and so deeply that homosexuality is so contrary to anything right or good or holy that he's incredulous you can't see it. This is a tactic of his to make you feel foolish with what he thinks you should see as a given. This is Gagnon, who sees homosexuality as the equivalent of "a child touching a hot stove."
He takes apart the easy argument of those who bring up the "abomination" of mixing two types of cloth with the "abomination" of homosexuality in Leviticus. Why doesn't he bring up the more complex issue of divorce that Christ takes away from Moses? The sin of usury in the Old Testament Christ actually carried over, unlike homosexuality? Breaking the Sabbath, which also calls for the death penalty? Circumcision, the Old Testament says, is a "forever" act? Or the other slew of what the Bible calls "abominations?"
Leave it up to Gagnon to make the story of the woman who was going to be stoned to be about the woman's adultery and not about how we are to be merciful and not judging, what Christ tells us to go and 'do likewise' in Luke 10:37. What do we get out of what Jesus did in here according to Gagnon? Saving someone for the future "Kingdom of God" who may choose not to repent. Is it this? Or is it Jesus showing the example of bestowing mercy over the letter of the law (James 2:12,13) to the crowd of witnesses? What made Him an enemy to the Scribes and the Pharisees who brought the woman to Christ to be stoned according to "The Law." By implication, Gagnon says Jesus would have taken part in the stoning if He could, but begrudgingly stops Himself for the singular reason of saving her for "The Kingdom." This is yet another case of Gagnon not being able to take his head out of "Old Testament" weights and balances and missing the mark that Christ did what He did to give an example to the listeners around the adulteress and to us.
Paul called out a man at the church in Corinth for what he was doing that hurt another with what was a transgressive relationship. Gagnon says it's the same with two non-related homosexuals (ironically, Gagnon has stated that the Corinthian man's incest is preferable to homosexuality). He takes the Greek word "Porneia" (harlotry) in the verse describing the Corinthian man's sin and carries that description to mean homosexuality. In all Biblical instances, the word is used, without exception, it is either about a breaking of a marriage obligation or prostitution, and is never carried over to homosexuality, which Gagnon would have you believe that again is him broadening a prohibition beyond its clear and stated borders.
Gagnon gives away his bias against Homosexuality by saying tolerance is not loving, but then he says to show tolerance to the divorced with the excuse it's a "one-time sin," and immediately it stops being a sin or living in a state of sin.
His question of, "Are homosexuals at risk?" He answers his own question because to him, there is no other answer. Gagnon uses the term "Aggressive Love," which to him translates as fighting legislation that would stop gay children from being bullied in school, to writing letters to church bodies telling them to kick gays out, THIS is Gagnon's "love" in action, a love he thinks he sees with Christ. Unlike what Gagnon believes, love does not dishonor others or demand its way... just ask Paul (1 Cor 13:5), a 'good disciple' of Jesus.
No further comment is needed with Gagnon's claim that the only problem the Pharisees had with Christ was that he was pushy with an even more intensified Old Testament ethic, while at the same time being loving. I really wonder if Gagnon believes this himself.
This is one of Gagnon's weakest arguments (I'm assuming you stop the vid and read what I say as he's talking), along with the since discredited "science" in his book, that somehow men and women are to be 'complimentary parts' to each other, a pagan-based belief, and is a large part of why he believes as he does. I point out this error of his in my own review of his book, "The Construction of Homosexuality... "Gagnon goes to bogus science because he can never show the "consequence" of homosexuality; he compares it to vices that do have notable consequences in Paul's vice lists.
When Gagnon brings up the fact that Christ never talks about homosexuality by saying Christ never brought up incest either, he misses the fact that Sodom was brought up to Christ. Instead of leading Christ to expand further with what was the sin of Sodom, Christ says nothing other than making it a hospitality case.* When Christ comes across the same-sex practicing Centurion, He says nothing other than to admire the faith of the Centurion. When Christ does speak on marriage, he's quick to bring up "born eunuchs," Gagnon himself concedes could fit the historical definition of a homosexual in a private e-mail discussion.
Gagnon states; "There is no record of a Jew practicing homosexuality in early Judaism" and "There is no dissenting opinion anywhere in Judaism on the subject of homosexuality," he's wrong (see; "Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition" by Steven Greenberg and "Jacob's Wound: Homoerotic Narrative in the Literature of Ancient Israel" by Theodore W. Jennings Jr).
Gagnon's false claim that the Greek term "Malakoi" he tries to pass off as meaning an effeminate 'gay' man is easily refuted by others who bothered with the word (see "Love Lost In Translation" by K. Renato Lings with outside sources referenced: 490 - 499).
The Hebrew expression mishkav zakhar is the Hebrew translation of "lying of a male" from Numbers 31:18 and only describes the act of penetration.
Gagnon brings up his two children and what they KNOW is wrong, and equates that with how we are supposed to feel about homosexuality; we should KNOW it's wrong. Gagnon believes so strongly and so deeply that homosexuality is so contrary to anything right or good or holy that he's incredulous you can't see it. This is a tactic of his to make you feel foolish with what he thinks you should see as a given. This is Gagnon, who sees homosexuality as the equivalent of "a child touching a hot stove."
He takes apart the easy argument of those who bring up the "abomination" of mixing two types of cloth with the "abomination" of homosexuality in Leviticus. Why doesn't he bring up the more complex issue of divorce that Christ takes away from Moses? The sin of usury in the Old Testament Christ actually carried over, unlike homosexuality? Breaking the Sabbath, which also calls for the death penalty? Circumcision, the Old Testament says, is a "forever" act? Or the other slew of what the Bible calls "abominations?"
Leave it up to Gagnon to make the story of the woman who was going to be stoned to be about the woman's adultery and not about how we are to be merciful and not judging, what Christ tells us to go and 'do likewise' in Luke 10:37. What do we get out of what Jesus did in here according to Gagnon? Saving someone for the future "Kingdom of God" who may choose not to repent. Is it this? Or is it Jesus showing the example of bestowing mercy over the letter of the law (James 2:12,13) to the crowd of witnesses? What made Him an enemy to the Scribes and the Pharisees who brought the woman to Christ to be stoned according to "The Law." By implication, Gagnon says Jesus would have taken part in the stoning if He could, but begrudgingly stops Himself for the singular reason of saving her for "The Kingdom." This is yet another case of Gagnon not being able to take his head out of "Old Testament" weights and balances and missing the mark that Christ did what He did to give an example to the listeners around the adulteress and to us.
Paul called out a man at the church in Corinth for what he was doing that hurt another with what was a transgressive relationship. Gagnon says it's the same with two non-related homosexuals (ironically, Gagnon has stated that the Corinthian man's incest is preferable to homosexuality). He takes the Greek word "Porneia" (harlotry) in the verse describing the Corinthian man's sin and carries that description to mean homosexuality. In all Biblical instances, the word is used, without exception, it is either about a breaking of a marriage obligation or prostitution, and is never carried over to homosexuality, which Gagnon would have you believe that again is him broadening a prohibition beyond its clear and stated borders.
Gagnon gives away his bias against Homosexuality by saying tolerance is not loving, but then he says to show tolerance to the divorced with the excuse it's a "one-time sin," and immediately it stops being a sin or living in a state of sin.
His question of, "Are homosexuals at risk?" He answers his own question because to him, there is no other answer. Gagnon uses the term "Aggressive Love," which to him translates as fighting legislation that would stop gay children from being bullied in school, to writing letters to church bodies telling them to kick gays out, THIS is Gagnon's "love" in action, a love he thinks he sees with Christ. Unlike what Gagnon believes, love does not dishonor others or demand its way... just ask Paul (1 Cor 13:5), a 'good disciple' of Jesus.
No further comment is needed with Gagnon's claim that the only problem the Pharisees had with Christ was that he was pushy with an even more intensified Old Testament ethic, while at the same time being loving. I really wonder if Gagnon believes this himself.
This is one of Gagnon's weakest arguments (I'm assuming you stop the vid and read what I say as he's talking), along with the since discredited "science" in his book, that somehow men and women are to be 'complimentary parts' to each other, a pagan-based belief, and is a large part of why he believes as he does. I point out this error of his in my own review of his book, "The Construction of Homosexuality... "Gagnon goes to bogus science because he can never show the "consequence" of homosexuality; he compares it to vices that do have notable consequences in Paul's vice lists.
When Gagnon brings up the fact that Christ never talks about homosexuality by saying Christ never brought up incest either, he misses the fact that Sodom was brought up to Christ. Instead of leading Christ to expand further with what was the sin of Sodom, Christ says nothing other than making it a hospitality case.* When Christ comes across the same-sex practicing Centurion, He says nothing other than to admire the faith of the Centurion. When Christ does speak on marriage, he's quick to bring up "born eunuchs," Gagnon himself concedes could fit the historical definition of a homosexual in a private e-mail discussion.
Gagnon states; "There is no record of a Jew practicing homosexuality in early Judaism" and "There is no dissenting opinion anywhere in Judaism on the subject of homosexuality," he's wrong (see; "Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition" by Steven Greenberg and "Jacob's Wound: Homoerotic Narrative in the Literature of Ancient Israel" by Theodore W. Jennings Jr).
Gagnon's false claim that the Greek term "Malakoi" he tries to pass off as meaning an effeminate 'gay' man is easily refuted by others who bothered with the word (see "Love Lost In Translation" by K. Renato Lings with outside sources referenced: 490 - 499).
The Hebrew expression mishkav zakhar is the Hebrew translation of "lying of a male" from Numbers 31:18 and only describes the act of penetration.
It's worth repeating an excerpt of what scholar Jean-Fabrice Nardelli has to say on Gagnon that needs no further comment:
Gagnon brings up Sodom in not this video, but elsewhere in an attempt to force the story from lack of hospitality, he admits is the gist of the story, to homosexuality. My response is here that also covers Jude 1:7. He makes the lack of hospitality with Sodom about homosexuality and then says no ancient Jews ever practiced homosexuality, yet Jeremiah 23:14 says this about the people of Israel; "...They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah." You can't have it both ways by making Sodom about homosexuality and saying the Jews didn't practice homosexuality when Israel was like Sodom.
As you can see, Gagnon has thoroughly refuted with what are his general arguments he condensed in the above video on homosexuality and the Bible.
No comments:
Post a Comment