Atheist In The Dungeon-Part 2
Responding to Gavin Alexander's Arguments, part 2
Updated 2/15/24
Mr. Alexander is still there in that comments section. And he was extremely rude to Mr. Paladin Christian again. He called Mr. Paladin Christian a troll again. He also said, "Bye, Felicia," to Mr. Paladin Christian. So not cool.
For those of you who don't know, saying "Bye, Felicia," is a popular way of rudely dismissing someone you deem unimportant.
Don't say it to Mr. Alexander (or to anyone for that matter), please. It's rude and uncharitable.
Oh, look! Mr. Alexander says, "Bless your heart," to Mr. Paladin Christian. For those of you who are not American, "Bless your heart" is used as an insult in the Southern part of the United States. We Americans call the Southern part of the US "the South" or the Southern States. The states that make up the South are Virginia, Tennesee, Arkansas, the Carolinas (North Carolina and South Carolina), Louisana, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, and Texas.
And it's clear from the context in the thread that Mr. Alexander clearly means it as an insult. So not only is he a rude atheist, but is also probably a Southerner. Though, I've never heard a Southern man use "bless your heart," as an insult before this. I've only heard Southern women use it as an insult.
OK, now I have to call out Mr. Paladin Christian because he used an Ad Hominem fallacy/attack. Attack the argument, not the person, folks.
Besides belittling Christians and other people of faith, Gavin Alexander seems to have forgotten something.
Which leads me to talk a bit about Star Wars. While Star Wars is indeed a work of fiction created by a human being to entertain us, that doesn't mean there aren't many valuable insights that we can take away from this beloved sci-fi fantasy franchise. There quite a few valuable insights that we can take away, such as this little nugget of insight from Return of the Jedi:
His discussion with Luke about Anakin's fall to the Dark Side is actually good for the point of this blog post.
The statement "Anakin turned to the Dark Side" is an established and irrefutable fact. Why? Because the narrative of the Star Wars prequel trilogy clearly shows us that he did. The prequel trilogy shows his journey down the dark path, culminating in his full embrace of the Dark Side of the Force in Revenge of the Sith. As a long time Star Wars fan who watched the original trilogy first and then the prequel trilogy, there is some truth in Obi-Wan's explanation of Anakin's conversion to the Dark Side.
Anakin was indeed seduced by the Dark Side. In Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith, we get to see then-Chancellor Palpatine's subtle manipulation of Anakin. He gave Anakin samples of the increased strength and power he could have when he indulges his darker emotions like anger and hate. The first time we see Anakin experience a foretaste of the increased strength and power from indulging his darker emotions is in Attack of the Clones. After traveling all the way to Tatooine in search of his mother, Anakin found her being held hostage in a camp of Tusken Raiders or Sand People. It is very clear she had been severely tortured. Mere moments after he he found her, she died in his arms and Anakin quickly became furious. In a fit of rage, he killed all the Tusken Raiders in the camp, including the women and children.
Later, Anakin told Padme, his beloved, what he did and angrily declared that he hates the Sand People. Then, Anakin broke down in tears of remorse. But it was too late, for he already had taken the first three steps towards the Dark Side: fear, anger, and hate. Besides, Chancellor Palpatine would not rest until Anakin's journey to the dark side was complete.
In Revenge of the Sith, Chancellor Palpatine tested Anakin's readiness for conversion to the Dark Side. Unfortunately for himself, those he cared about, and the fans but fortunately for the sake of the narrative, Anakin passed that test with flying colors.
But Palpatine knew that it would take more than foretastes of increased power and strength to lure Anakin fully to the Dark Side. Anakin had dreams of Padme dying in childbirth. Due to his mother dying after he found her, Anakin was terrified of losing Padme and he was determined to keep his dreams from coming true. Palpatine used Anakin's fear of losing Padme to beckon him to the Dark Side. He falsely promised that the power of the Dark Side would give Anakin the ability of to prevent Padme from dying. Despite the turmoil inside him, Anakin fell for Palpatine's lies. The fear of losing Padme and Palpatine's deceptive promise that the power of the Dark Side of the Force could save Padme pushed him over the edge. He succumbed to the Dark Side and became Darth Vader.
When Obi-Wan found out about Anakin's conversion, good ole Master Yoda told him, "The boy you trained, gone he is. Consumed by Darth Vader."
When Padme found out about Anakin's conversion to the Dark Side, she went to talk to him. Upon talking to him, Padme could no longer recognize her husband, for the Dark Side had corrupted him to the point that his demeanor, the way he talked, his ambitions, and thoughts had completely changed.
She even said, "I don't know you anymore. Anakin, you've changed."
In an emotional scene of the Season One finale of Obi-Wan Kenobi, Vader himself even admitted to Obi-Wan that he alone was responsible for the "betrayal and murder" of Anakin Skywalker.
Though this is not what the Emperor wanted Vader to believe, he didn't need to fret because Vader would remain securely in the camp of the Dark Side for many years to come. Also, Vader admitted to betraying and murdering Anakin purely out of pride.
So in a way, Darth Vader had indeed betrayed and murdered Anakin Skywalker.
But on her deathbed, Padme asserted to Obi-Wan that there was still good in Vader. This assertion would later be echoed by her son, Luke. There is also truth in Luke's statement that there is still good in Vader. This is not made evident by Vader's external actions. Even good external actions like sparing Reva's life and sparing a young Starkiller's life were done out of evil motives.
I mean, this is the same guy who murdered children who were training to become Jedi. It is made evident by the fact that other Force sensitive characters like Luke could sense the conflict within Vader.
(When I watched that scene of the Obi-Wan Kenobi Season One finale, for the first time, I replied with "Not completely" when Vader said, "Anakin is gone.") Even the most evil person has a sliver of good in them. Redemption is one of the central themes of Star Wars.
I know I just said Vader's good outward actions were done out of evil reasons, but that's different because he's a character in a work of fiction. We can discern a fictional character's intention because stories give us a kind of "bird's eye view." But we cannot know for certain what a real person's intent is.
In fact, Gavin would probably tell me that the false persecution complex is thick with me.
Here's why I don't think I have a false persecution complex. Gavin, by his own admission, is in that comments section because one theist disrespected his boundaries by shoving a video in his face. He admitted that countering the spread and acclaim of "idealogies that are instrinsically harmful to lgbtq+ people" is one of his hobbies and that's why he's in that comment section.
By his own admission, Gavin thinks he is not required to be polite to people who are praising the video.
One theist told him that he's wrong and he reacts by watching the video and then rudely telling theists that their conscience has been warped by their "immoral" religious beliefs and things like that.
People can have morals that are not based on religious belief systems. I have no problem with people explaining what their morals are and where they get said morals. But Gavin has not revealed what his moral code is based on. Just that Christianity and its God are immoral based on things He "condoned or carried out:" slavery, pillory, genocide, etc.
So I am not required to follow someone else's moral code if that person has not revealed the basis of that moral code.
I am not required to follow someone's moral code, especially if that person has made a hobby out of countering the spread and renown of legitimate religions.
I am not required to follow someone's moral code, especially if that person thinks they are not required to be polite to people who explain a teaching of their legitimate religion and who praise that explanation of that teaching.
Here's agnostic YouTuber Joe Schmid explaining his system of morality, "Moral Realism," in this video.
Notice how he explains why he doesn't observe certain moral rules, but also how he does not rudely write off entire religions as false and immoral because a dogma/doctrine contradicts something that is tangible in the natural world. For example, because the natural world contradicts the Bible about God creating human beings male and female, to Gavin, that brings down Christianity.
And also because he cares about individual human beings, especially if institutions are oppressing them.
That is commendable to some extent. Gavin would get along well with my sister because she also cares about the individual human being over institutions. She doesn't totally eschew institutions, because she knows they have their place and purpose in our world. But she has a special compassion towards the people that institutions overlook.
I am objecting to him telling us what to do based on his logic. He thinks he can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that Christianity is false, on the basis that the Bible makes some claims that are contrary to what we witness in the natural world. He answers that what can be witnessed in the natural world is natural.
So what can be witnessed in the nature is natural: here's why that rebuttal isn't sound.
Male sea otters have been observed being violent during mating attempts to point of biting the other otter and sometimes even killing the other otter. They have also been obeserved to attempt to mate with dead baby seals.
If what can be witnessed in nature is natural, then why is biting and killing a partner during mating OK for sea otters to do, but immoral for human beings to do the same?
If what can be witnessed is nature is natural, then why is attempting to mate with another dead creature OK for sea otters to do, but immoral for human beings to do the same?
The answer is that humans have the innate ability to employ reason and discern between right and wrong, but sea otters don't.
Here are two videos featuring Bill Nye, who I like and watched in school, taking the position that you can't prove a negative because of contradictory evidence. As I said in Part 1, I am more sympathetic towards agnostics because they're not likely to discredit religion over a lack of evidence. But I am willing to listen to atheists who are willing to explain their perspective politely. Let's meet each other we're at and find common ground instead of rushing in with "you're wrong" and supporting arguments.
Since when does telling the other person "you're wrong" win them over to your side? That's right, it usually doesn't. Facts are important, but it's how you present them that's equally important.
So you cannot dispute that the Bible makes demonstrably false claims about the natural world on the basis that intersex people exist. Gender identity is defined by factors other than genitals. Gavin can argue based on his logic until he's blue in the face, but people are going to believe what they believe regardless of what he has to say.
He can present all the logical arguments that Christianity is homophobic all he wants, but I am not obligated to adopt his viewpoint.
He can present evidence that people are deconverting from Christianity, becoming non-believers, and that they're happy as non-religious people, but I can do the exact opposite and present evidence that shows the percentage of non-religious people who are miserable.
In fact, he has explicitly said that he is not obligated to be polite to people who praise the video. Here's a clip from an episode of Downton Abbey to show why his mentality is flawed.
Man, that was an unpleasant scene. Miss Bunting is a socialist so that's why she hates aristocrats. While her opinions were valid, she was still disrespectful to her host.
Gavin exhibits the attitude as Miss Bunting did except his can be summed up as "I am not obligated to be polite to people who praise this video."
Even if someone is engaging in injustice whether that injustice is real or perceived, you should still treat them with respect. It's OK to be angry at injustice. I don't want to tone-police people. However, I will be assertive and set healthy boundaries about what I will and will not tolerate.
And in this case, I will not put up with people being rude to me because I have a belief system that's seen as outdated and I don't think two people of the same gender should be sleeping with each other or be married to each other.
Christians are called to live in the world, but not be of the world. I accepted that the moment I made my faith my own and got confirmed. I knew that there would be things in the culture that I would have to oppose. I knew I would have to stick up for the unborn and say no to supporting same-sex "marriage." And I don't do it only because I have to in order to be a good little Catholic. I do it because I trust God when He says there are certain things that are not good for us. And on the abortion issue, religious people are not the only demographic who oppose it. Many non-believers do, too, because they know that no matter what stage of development an unborn baby is at, it is still a life. It is still a human being.
I will not put up with being told that I have a false persecution complex when a person is actually being rude to me because of my convictions.
I will not put with my emotions being dismissed as "feigned," because more than likely, the person who did so has legitimately pissed me off.
I told my sister about this scene and even she agreed, based on my account, that Lord Grantham was well within his rights to throw Miss Bunting out of the house because she was rude and disrespectful.
Imagine that! My sister, who prefers people over institutions, agreed that Miss Bunting was disrespectful and that Lord Grantham was right to tell her to leave.
Yes, the Ascension video caused division amongst people. Some people praised the video while others condemned it.
Now, I am aware that Mr. Alexander calls the Christian stance on homosexuality abusive, manipulative, and malicious.
I disagree and here's why. I will back up my argument that the video and the Christian stance on homosexuality does not constitute any kind of abuse with two works of fiction that depict abusive behavior.
The first is the 1996 Disney film, The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
The abuse depicted in Hunchback is perpetrated by Judge Claude Frollo, the film's villain. Frollo is a religious fanatic who serves as a Minister of Justice in medieval Paris, which is where the movie is set. He's basically the fictional medieval Christian public servant version of a pharisee. Just like the pharisees, he appears to be pious and god-fearing, but he's really not. Instead, he's self-righteous and malicious. And just like Jesus saw right through the pharisees' outward piety, the viewer sees right through Frollo's.
In the opening scenes of the film, Frollo's cruelty is made apparent by his capture of a group of Gypsies, pursuing an innocent Gypsy woman with an infant, causing her to die by causing her to fall and hit her head on the steps of the titular Cathedral, and attempting to drown her baby in a nearby well.
The Archdeacon of the Cathedral intervenes and administers fraternal correction to Frollo for his sin of voluntary manslaughter. His penance for killing an innocent Gypsy woman? To raise her orphaned child.
Here are the relevant lyrics from the film's opening song, The Bells of Notre Dame.
[Clopin, sung]
Four frightened gypsies slid silently under
The docks near Notre Dame
[Man #3, spoken]
Four guilders for safe passage into Paris
[Clopin, sung]
But a trap had been laid for the gypsies
And they gazed up in fear and alarm
At a figure whose clutches
Were iron as much as the bells
[Man #1, spoken]
Judge Claude Frollo!
[Clopin, sung]
The bells of Notre Dame
[Chorus]
Kyrie Eleison (Lord have mercy)
[Clopin]
Judge Claude Frollo longed
To purge the world
Of vice and sin
[Chorus]
Kyrie Eleison (Lord have mercy)
[Clopin]
And he saw corruption
Ev'rywhere
Except within
[Frollo, spoken]
Bring these gypsy vermin to the palace of justice.
[Guard]
You there, what are you hiding?
[Frollo]
Stolen goods, no doubt. Take them from her
[Clopin]
She ran
[Chorus, sung]
Dies irae, dies illa (Day of wrath, that day)
Solvet saeclum in favilla (Shall consume the world in ashes)
Teste David cum sibylla (As prophesied by David and the sibyl)
Quantus tremor est futurus (What trembling is to be)
Quando Judex est venturus (When the Judge is come)
[Woman, spoken]
Sanctuary, please give us sanctuary!
[Frollo]
A baby? A monster!
[Frollo, spoken]
This is an unholy deamon
I am sending it back to Hell, where it belongs
[Archdeacon, sung]
See there the innocent blood you have spilt
On the steps of Notre Dame
[Frollo, spoken]
I am guiltless. She ran, I pursued
[Archdeacon, sung]
Now you would add this child's blood to your guilt
On the steps of Notre Dame
[Frollo, spoken]
My conscience is clear!
[Archdeacon, sung]
You can lie to yourself and your minions
You can claim that you haven't a qualm
But you never can run from
Nor hide what you've done from the eyes
The very eyes of Notre Dame
[Chorus]
Kyrie Eleison (Lord have mercy)
[Clopin]
And for one time in his life
Of power and control
[Chorus]
Kyrie Eleison (Lord have mercy)
[Clopin]
Frollo felt a twinge of fear
For his immortal soul
[Frollo, spoken]
What must I do?
[Archdeacon]
Care for the child, and raise it as your own
[Frollo]
What? I'm to be saddled with this misshapen...?
Very well. Let him live with you, in your church
[Archdeacon]
Live here? Where?
[Frollo]
Anywhere
(Sung)
Just so he's kept locked away
Where no one else can see
(Spoken)
The bell tower, perhaps
And who knows, our Lord works in mysterious ways
But Frollo's healthy dose of fear for putting his immortal soul in jeopardy is quickly overshadowed by his idea that someday the child may be of use to him and his cruel agenda.
(Sung)
Even this foul creature may
Yet prove one day to be
Of use to me
[Clopin, spoken]
And Frollo gave the child a cruel name
A name that means "half-formed":
Quasimodo
These lyrics convey that Frollo sees Quasi as less than human because he is deformed. At this point, any potential redeeming qualities Frollo had are gone.
Years later, Quasi is the bellringer of Notre Dame. Hidden away from the outside world, he carves wooden figures of the people of the city and has a wooden 3D model of the city that he's made. He longs to go the Feast of Fools, but knows he can't because Frollo won't let him and would be pretty upset if he disobeyed. His friends, the Gargoyles, convince him to go in disguise so Frollo doesn't find out. Just then, Frollo visits with a picnic basket containing their lunch. As they eat, Frollo asks if they should review Quasi's progress with learning the alphabet. Quasi says yes. Frollo takes out a book and starts naming the letters. At each letter, Quasi blurts out religious terms beginning with the specific letters: "abomination," "blasphemy," "contrition," "damnation," "eternal damnation." When they get to "F," Quasi blurts out "festival," which prompts Frollo to spit out a mouthful of wine, dab his mouth with a napkin, and say, "Excuse me?" with a tone of displeasure. Quasi quickly blurts out, "forgiveness," to placate Frollo. "You said 'festival,'" Frollo says as he snaps the book shut. "No!" Quasi cries out. "You are thinking about going to the festival." Frollo says. "It's just that...you go every year." Quasi explains.
Here is the rest of the exchange between the two in this scene.
Frollo: I am a public official. I must go! But I don't enjoy a moment. Thieves and hustlers and the dregs of humankind, all mixed together in a shallow, drunken stupor.
Quasi: I didn't mean to upset you, master.
Frollo: Quasimodo, can't you understand? When your heartless mother abandoned you as a child , anyone else would have drowned you. And this my thanks for taking you in and raising you as my son?
Frollo's last response is a clear sign of abuse, because we, the audience, know the truth: Quasi's mother was not heartless and she did not abandon him. As for the "anyone else would have drowned you," we know Frollo tried to do that. I'm not sure if anyone else would have. Frollo's guards and the people of the city (except Clopin, Phoebus, and Esmeralda)? Maybe, given their poor treatment of Quasi at the festival. Frollo's last sentence is clear-cut emotional abuse and manipulation. And possibly even gaslighting.
Quasi: I'm sorry, sir.
Frollo: Oh, my dear Quasimodo, you don't know what it's like out there. I do...I do...
More manipulation so Quasi continues to trust and depend on him.
(Frollo begins to sing his version of "Out There")
The world is cruel
The world is wicked
It's I alone whom you can trust in this whole city
I am your only friend
I who keep you, teach you, feed you, dress you
I who look upon you without fear
How can I protect you, boy, unless you
Always stay in here
Away in here
(spoken) Remember what I taught you, Quasimodo
(sung) You are deformed
Quasi: I am deformed
Frollo: And you are ugly
Quasi: And I am ugly
Frollo: And these are crimes
For which the world
Shows little pity
You do not comprehend
Quasi: You are my one defender
Frollo: Out there they'll revile you As a monster
Quasi: I am a monster
Frollo: Out there they will hate
And scorn and jeer
Quasi: Only a monster
Frollo: Why invite their calumny
And consternation?
Stay in here
Be faithful to me
Quasi: I'm faithful
Frollo: Grateful to me
Quasi: I'm grateful
Frollo: Do as I say
Obey
And stay
In here
Quasi: I'll stay
In here
Check out this pic of Frollo during this song.
Folks, that is the most creepy evil smile I have ever seen. So throughout Frollo's "Out There," we see pyschological abuse in action. However, Frollo's abuse does contain a truth in it: the outside world, with the exception of Esmeralda, was cruel to Quasi because he was deformed. However, this is so because Frollo didn't stop it when he had the chance.
The most dangerous lie is one that has an element of truth in it.
In Frollo's eyes, the Gypsies are less than human. I'll back this up with dialogue between Frollo and Captain Phoebus, and put the parts that show this explicitly in bold.
Frollo: Ah, so this is the gallant Captain Phoebus, home from the wars.
Phoebus: Reporting for duty, as ordered, sir.
Frollo: Your service record precedes you, Phoebus. I expect nothing but the best from a war hero of your calibre.
Phoebus: And you shall have it, sir. I guarantee it.
Frollo: Yes. You know, my last captain of the guard was, um, a bit of a disappointment to me.
(A whip crack and a scream interrupt Frollo. Phoebus appears startled at the crack.)
Frollo: Well, no matter. I'm sure you'll whip my men into shape.
Phoebus: Uh, thank you, sir, uh, very, uh, trem--uh, a tremendous honour, sir.
Frollo: You come to Paris in her darkest hour, Captain. It will take a firm hand to save the weak-minded from being so easily misled.
Phoebus: Misled, sir?
Frollo: Look, Captain--gypsies. The gypsies live outside the normal order. Their heathen ways inflame the peoples' lowest instincts, and they must be stopped.
Phoebus: (A bit surprised) I was summoned from the wars to capture fortune tellers and palm readers?
Frollo: Oh, the real war, Captain, is what you see before you. For twenty years, I have been taking care of the gypsies, one...by...one. (On each of the last three words, Frollo crushes one of three ants on a tile. He flips the tile over, revealing scores of ants scurrying around underneath.)
Frollo: And yet, for all of my success, they have thrived. I believe they have a safe haven, within the walls of this very city. A nest, if you will. They call it the Court of Miracles.
Phoebus: What are we going to do about it, sir?
(Frollo slams the tile back down upside down, and turns it, crushing the remainder of the ants.)
Phoebus: You make your point quite vividly, sir.
Frollo: You know, I like you captain. Shall we? (He begins to leave, when the crowd below begins to cheer loudly.)
Frollo: Oh, duty calls. Have you ever attended a peasant festival, Captain?
Phoebus: Not recently, sir.
Frollo: Then this should be quite an education for you. Come along.
Even Esmeralda, the Gypsy woman Frollo is attracted to, is an object for his disordered sexual pleasure instead of a person to love. The song "Hellfire," which is one of the best Disney villain songs, is proof of this.
The second work of fiction is my favorite musical, Andrew Lloyd-Webber's The Phantom of the Opera. Like Hunchback, abuse is rampant in this musical. But unlike Frollo who as a villain is compelling, but garners no sympathy as a person, it is so easy to sympathize with the Phantom.
Most of the abuse takes place within the magnetic relationship between the Phantom and his pupil and beloved, Christine.
And yes, Christine is the Phantom's beloved. Despite his outward abusive behavior and words that convey a transactional view of love, the Phantom truly loved Christine.
Let me talk about the Phantom's tragic past so you can see that the Phantom's motives are quite different than Frollo's. The Phantom was born with half of his face deformed. As the lyrics towards the end of the musical tell us, his own mother hated and feared him because of his deformed face.
[PHANTOM]
That fate which condemns me to wallow in blood
Has also denied me the joys of the flesh
This face-the infection which poisons our love
This face, which earned a mother's fear and loathing...
A mask, my first unfeeling scrap of clothing...
She hated and feared him so much that she sold him to a group of Gypsies who abused him and displayed him as a human oddity.
Here is Madame Giry's account, corroborating the story of his time with the Gypsies in their traveling fair from both the 2004 film and the stage production.
2004 film version:
Stage production, 25th anniversary at the Royal Albert Hall:
Madame Giry:
So the Phantom abused Christine and terrorized an Opera House because he had a tragic childhood in which he was abused, ridiculed, and shunned by almost everyone who came into contact with him all because he had a deformed face. And because he wasn't given the tools to express his needs and wants in a healthy way.
As a result of people denying him love, affection, sympathy, dignity, and respect, the poor thing suffered from a great deal of complex trauma and had no tools to manage it properly.
And some people who know this musical well still say that "The Phantom longed to fully dominate and restrict Christine. He didn't truly love her" and "there is no space for love in abuse."
I've discussed this viewpoint, with which I strongly disagree, with my sister, a therapist dealing with troubled kids. She knows firsthand from working with troubled kids that a person with a ton of trauma can genuinely love someone in their hearts, but their ability of showing it and expressing a healthy view of love is often damaged due to trauma and other psychological issues.
So she and I agree that in his heart, the Phantom truly loved Christine as a person, but he couldn't show it in a healthy way and couldn't express a healthy view of love due to the extreme amount of complex trauma he was experiencing.
The Phantom loved Christine not just for her voice and her physical beauty, but because she was innocent, compassionate, and gentle.
So unlike Frollo, the Phantom's intentions behind the abuse weren't malicious. The Phantom wanted to love and be loved so his intentions were good.
Now, in real life, intentions behind abuse are often not good. So I understand why Mr. Alexander thinks why Jason's intentions are malicious. But I don't think his intentions are malicious. Like the Phantom, Jason Evert means well.
The Catholic Church also means well when she labels homosexual inclinations as "objectively disordered," and says homosexual acts are intrinsically and gravely disordered. Otherwise, the Catechism would not explicitly require Catholics to treat people with homosexual attractions "with compassion, sensitivity, and respect," in a subsequent paragraph.
So the Ascension video is not abusive or manipulative because Jason is not lying, manipulating, or abusing people.
In fact, here's the same talk he gave, but this one is from his own YouTube channel and it's the better version because it includes scientific evidence from the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Time for more screenshots of Gavin's replies.
Really? If dying on a cross to save us from our crimes against Him and giving Himself to us as bread isn't love, then I don't know what is.
God wants to keep us all safe. That's why He doesn't want us having same-gender sex.
It is perfectly OK for people of the same gender to be close to each other. But marriage and same-gender sex are just not possible.
I recognize that Gavin is using a sarcastic rhetorical device here to get Catholics in general to see how Jason's attempt to encourage LGBTQ+ people to seperate their sexual orientation from their identity is horrible. But this other user, Angie, as her handle is now, clearly didn't catch that. And she's not the only one who was tripped up by this tactic. I didn't catch it at first, either. I thought it was a position he was taking.
Personally, I prefer a different approach. The one Gavin uses is backhanded in my opinion. Why is that?
Because it's mirroring a sincere statement in a sarcastic way to try to help the person see why their sincere statement is inconsiderate to a LGBTQ+ person. That tactic is like all of those British women handing out white feathers to men not in uniform to shame them into enlisting during World War I.
Here's a clip from Downton Abbey in which two women hand out white feathers to men who are not in military uniform at a charity concert hosted by Lord Grantham and the Crawleys. Fortunately, Lord Grantham stops them and asks them to leave, and they do, but not before they have the chance to hand Tom Branson, the Crawley family's chauffeur, a white feather. Scene begins at 8: 26.
I found those two young ladies pretty unpleasant. Poor William gets killed because two young women shamed him into enlisting. Fortunately, Tom didn't seem too shaken. He seemed amused after they handed him the feather. There are three characters in this show whose wrath you never want to incur: Lord Grantham's, Mr. Bates's, and the Dowager's.
While the Dowager's ire isn't as direct, nevertheless, you don't want to incur it, trust me. And those ladies got the full blast of Lord Grantham's wrath.
While I will make an effort to give Mr. Alexander the benefit of the doubt and assume he means well, I will also say this: just as shame is a less than ideal motivator, sarcastic rhetorical devices that mirror sincere assertions are not the ideal way to help Catholics and other people who subscribe to similiar idealogies about same-sex relationships out of the whisperings of their consciences see the inconsiderate nature of certain statements about identity.
I am not against rhetoric that is not necessarily sincere. After all, I use it frequently in my writings. In one fanfiction about MCU Loki & my OC, Marissa, their attendants are packing their belongings for a diplomatic trip to three countries on Earth. In the midst of packing tuxes, suits, and dresses for the couple's engagements, one of Loki's valets reminds Marissa's ladies to pack her diary and accompanying journaling supplies. The ladies acknowledge and one of them in instructs another to bring her those items, intending to put them in Marissa's suitcase immediately. Similarly, one of the valets instructs another one of the ladies to bring him Loki's journal and accompanying journaling supplies, intending to pack them immediately after another one of Marissa's ladies reminds him to pack those . As the two ladies are retrieving the royal diaries and writing supplies, Sven, the other valet, playfully warns the ladies about what might happen if Marissa's diary gets misplaced during the trip: "Be careful, ladies. You wouldn't want to face Her Majesty's royal glare if she couldn't record her thoughts on the royal carriage ride down the Mall or the mesmerizing Phantom performance due to a missing diary."
Helga, one of the ladies, shoots back with a similiar retort: "You'd better watch yourself, Sven. You might find yourself face to face with a livid expression from His Majesty if he can't note his thoughts about the House Sargeant at Arm's booming announcement or the view of the Eiffel Tower because his journal vanishes."
Sven, not to be outdone, fires back at Helga with one last playful warning: "I'll take my chances. But I worry about you, Helga. If the Queen can't document her visit to Box 5 at the Opera or the Mona Lisa at the Louvre due to her misplaced diary, Gods save you from her wrath, for it just might rival the Phantom's."
Kindra, another one of the ladies, interjects playfully, "Indeed, we wouldn't want a displeased Queen or an enraged King, would we?"
Sven then responds to Botri's comments by impersonating Raoul from Phantom, singing, "Of course not!"
All the attendants bust up at Sven's imitation of the character.
But my point in including all this banter over the diaries and potentially displeased and enraged royals in that story is fourfold: convey the camaraderie between the valets and ladies-in-waiting, how important writing down memories is to Loki & Marissa, the things that they look forward to the most on their diplomatic tour to the UK, France, and the US, and that despite the couple have only been on the throne for a little over a month, the attendants know their master and mistress pretty well.
The attendants' playful threats are exaggerations of the couple's potential reactions to not getting to journal about events they look forward to, but that should be clear because Marissa's anger goes nowhere near rivaling the Phantom's. Anyone who is familiar with The Phantom of the Opera story knows that in some versions, the Phantom's anger often results in lives being endangered and even ended. And Marissa not only allays Loki's more negative traits, but she brings out his positive ones and appeals to his better impulses. He's still mischievous to some degree because that's a big part of who he is, but his mischievous nature is the harmless kind now. And the attendants made sure that the diaries and accompanying writing supplies are securely stored in the couple's luggage. They know that they won't be facing royal glares or livid expressions over misplaced royal journals because they're so meticulous in the first place. They know that in all likelihood, Marissa & Loki will get to note down their memories.
My approach to an issue like the identity one is not to call an attempt like this "benighted" or cluck at the person. I'm not going to cluck at other Catholics for failing to see how bad this is.
I prefer to approach this with a smile and a kind, "You know what? I have something you might be interested in," and a link to my blog post about Catholics and LGBTQ+ identities.
I think kindly pointing fellow Catholics to my blog post will make it more likely that they will see they're wrong rather than using sarcastic rhetorical devices. In fact, here is the link to that blog post: A Few Notes on the Ascension Press Homosexuality Video.
Then, to qoute Lady Rose MacClare-Aldridge from Downton Abbey, "I'm afraid we must have different definitions of the word." When I think of love, I usually think of the four kinds as outlined by the Ancient Greeks.
I know Gavin didn't mean to offend anyone, but I am offended by comments like this. No amount of calling my religion immoral or cringeworthy is going to change anything.
In fact, let me ask the following questions to those who would tell a Christian that their religion is immoral: Is feeding the hungry immoral? Is caring for the sick immoral? Is giving the thirsty something to drink immoral? Is clothing the naked immoral?
Jesus commanded others to do all of the above in Matthew 25.
Is donating food, clothing, and money to the poor and less fortunate immoral? Is the message of Parable of the Good Samaritan immoral?
Most people would agree these are all kind and decent things to do. Most people would agree that the message of the Parable of the Good Samaritan is not morally objectionable in the slightest.
Also, I'd also like to point out another Gospel passage: the one featuring the women caught in adultery. And I will modify what Christ said to the crowd in that story to fit the situation at hand: Let he who is without immoral deed condemn a legitimate religion as immoral.
While I love my faith, I am not blind to the unexcusable deeds carried out in its name. I am not ignorant of the Salem witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, conversion therapy, and the sexual abuse scandals, and other unexcusable deeds. In regards to the Salem Witch Trials and the Spanish Inquisition, I can only say that both events were a major failure to heed Christ's words: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Those words were written down because they apply to all of us, not just the crowd whom those words were initially directed at.
"Having some examples of good doesn't negate what is not good. If an invididual harms one person yet gives another person food that does not make the individual a good or moral person."
That's absolute nonsense. Here's why, using the newer James Bond movies starring Daniel Craig as a example. The most recent string of 007 movies are more morally complex than the older ones, to give some background. But I'll focus on one trait of Bond's character to refute Mr. Alexander's counter-argument. And that trait is that 007 kills people. You just can't get through a James Bond movie without people dying onscreen by James's hand. Generally speaking, most people would agree that killing people is wrong. However, there are morally justified exceptions to this, such as war and self-defense.
Throughout the movies, James kills people for two reasons: self-defense and protecting innocent lives. The bad guys are terrorists in the Craig 007 movies and as Roger Moore's Bond says to Bond villain Francisco Scaramanga (played by phenomal actor Christopher Lee) in The Man With the Golden Gun: "When I kill, it's on the specific orders of my government and those I kill are themselves killers." The Daniel Craig Bond is no exception to this.
Killing people is harming them, but does James killing people make him a not good or moral person? No. Now, why is that? Because the external act itself, killing someone, is not enough to make Bond a not good or moral person. The moral nature of the external act depends heavily on James's intent and the circumstances around the act of him taking another human life. And as I've already said, when Bond kills, he does so out of self defense or the greater good. Often, both motives simultaneously drive him to commit the external act of killing another person And these two motives are morally justified and right. Hence, what is not good can sometimes be morally good, depending the circumstances and the intent.
Also, James is a spy and espionage involves a lot of morally grey areas in the first place.
"Only excuse? You're kidding, right? It's not an excuse. I specifically told you what my intent was. You got it wrong and in doing so, demonstrated your inability and you got caught in that. So instead of admitting it, you doubled down on your feigned indignation."
He did tell Water Boys what his intent was, but people who aren't familiar with the tactic of using sarcastic rhetorical devices aren't going to catch that.
"Stop the indignation act. Did you admonish the OP for their hateful comment, which I only mirrored to demonstrate the malicious nature of it? No, you did not."
Yes, Water Boys didn't admonish the OP. However, there's another way we Catholics handle another person's wrongdoing. He's accused me and other Catholics in that comments section of tone-policing when we try to get him to stop commenting or modify his tone but when we prefer to be gentle in our words, even when correcting someone, he accuses us of ulterior motives for our choice of gentle words.
To help me explain how Catholics handle an error or wrongdoing, I'm going to cite a passage from an article by Catholic pyschotherapist Dr. Greg Popcak. Dr. Popcak writes, "I would like to suggest something to you. I would ask you to consider purchasing a copy of Holy Sex! for everyone you know who has spoken favorably about 50 Shades, has read the book, or mentions they are going to see the movie. Don’t cluck at them. Don’t shame them. Look at them in the eye, smile, and say, “Hmmm. You know what? I think I have something that you’d really be interested in.” and hand them a copy of the book. Change the conversation. Give them the opportunity to see the truth."
(Emphasis mine).
So the passage is addressing the popularity of 50 Shades of Grey. But the same principles in this passage can be applied for when a Catholic tries to encourage a LGBTQ+ person to separate their sexuality from their identity. So when I don't admonish fellow Catholics for comments like the one Gavin is talking about, it's because I prefer a more constructive approach to open the person's eyes to the truth than sarcastically mirroring someone's genuine comment. I prefer to look at them in the eye, smile, and say, "Guess what? I think I have some information that you'd be really interested in," and tell them about my blog post on Catholicism and LGBTQ+ identity or just send the link to them.
I don't know argumentation and logical fallacies very well. And I don't think sarcastic mirrorings of a genuine comment someone else made is an ideal effective way to help them see what's wrong with their comment.
"I don't pick words based on their size."
Here's why that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. When I was younger, I had a knack for using bigger words when smaller words were more than enough to get my point across. My sister told me, "Use the 15 cent words instead of the 25 cent words. You can come across as pompous when you use the 25 cent words."
So yes, you can sound pompous when you use big words when smaller ones are available to you.
So Water Boys has a valid point here.
"I use words based on their utility and meaning. That's how humans communicate."
So do I! Here's an instance in which I have done so: The urgency of the situation compelled immediate action. With the letter penned, I summoned an emissary, a trusted figure within the kingdom. As he entered the study, I handed him the sealed letter with a sense of purpose.
"Deliver this with celerity to President Zelenskyy. Put it directly into his hand without delay," I instructed, the gravity of the task underscoring the importance of swift communication in times of crisis.
This passage is from another fanfiction I wrote, featuring Loki & Marissa. And if you notice, I used several words that some people may not know: "emissary," "penned," "celerity." But let's focus on the sentence containing the word "celerity." Now, to illustrate my previous point, I could have written, "Deliver this quickly to President Zelenskky." But I didn't. Why?
Because it is Marissa who summons the emissary and hands him the letter with those instructions. In the MCU, Loki & Thor use more sophisticated words because they're royalty. And because Marissa is the Queen of Jotunheim, she also uses a more sophiscated vocabulary, hence, the use of "celerity" in her instructions to the envoy.
"And if I encounter a word I don't understand, I don't feel insulted by someone using it or by not knowing. I consider it an opportunity to learn."
Good for him. But to me, this also comes across as being on an intellectual high horse. When someone doesn't know a word I use, I tell them what it means. I cut the person slack and don't look down my nose at them when they don't show the same amount of enthusiasm for opportunities to learn.
"Just because I ask for proof regarding characters in your religious stories, doesn't mean I've any claim that they don't exist."
To us, calling sentient beings in our religious texts "characters" is tantamount to calling them fictional. And calling them "characters" comes across as expressing the belief that they don't exist.
I don't buy into pagan deities, but I don't go around calling them characters, except for instances in which they're featured in literature and contemporary media.
To us Christians, the Devil is more real than Maleficent or the Emperor from Star Wars. Is it really too much to ask nonbelievers to not call figures in our religious texts "characters?"
"It just means I want some proof before I buy into it."
And I've seen how that turns out. This guy asks for it, a Christian provides it in the form of a playlist of videos that another person made and even gives directions to the playlist, and this guy accuses the Christian of shirking his burden of proof. I've covered that in this post: Atheist In the Dungeon Addendum
So yeah, I'm not inclined to believe that claim.
"When I mirror it, I've attacked your religion, your belief, and your god. Thank you for demonstrating my point, yet again."
Because we Catholics do not open people's eyes to the truth by sarcastically mirroring their genuine comments. I meet the person where they're at, which means I don't use sarcastic rhetorical devices in the first place.
So I have to call out the OP here. If you don't want to debate a non-believer for whatever reason, that's fine. But instead of using Ad Hominem attacks, just say something like, "I'm not comfortable nor obligated to present evidence to you." You don't even have to say why you're not comfortable or obligated.
"You responded to the other person, but not to me. So, I'll take your avoidance of the challenge put to you as an admission on YOUR part that you evidence for the existence of this alleged god character."
First off, the OP did respond, and they opted not to provide the evidence, which they have every right to do. Then they blocked Mr. Alexander, which also they have every right to do.
Secondly, Mr. Alexander knows logical fallacies well enough that he should know better than to employ an "Argument From Silence" fallacy. He has no right to push theists around with a statement like, "So, I'll take your avoidance of the challenge put to you as an admission on YOUR part that you have no evidence for the existence of this alleged god character."
Theists are not obligated to give him evidence for any reason and no amount of bullying from him should make you do so. If a theist says they're not comfortable or obligated to provide evidence, then, he should respect that and avoid making assumptions about why any of us opt not to provide him with evidence, regardless of whether we give a reason for choosing to do that or not.
"Therefore, the claims attributed to this character can be argued as nothing more than the benighted opinions of the primitive people who invented your particular myth. Thank you."
This is both continuing to erect his "Argument From Silence" fallacy and very disrespectful. I am not inclined to interact with people who use the words "benighted" and "primitive" and "myth" to describe my beliefs or the beings who gave rise to them.
He demands respect for himself and other members of the LGBTQ+ community, but when a theist opts to not fulfill his request for evidence, he accuses them of not engaging in good faith.
And he tops it all off with a snarky "thank you."
"Lol then why aren't you offering a rebuttal?"
Because no theist is obligated to humor him and play along when he chooses to engage in his hobby of countering the spread and acclaim of "idealogies that are intrinsically harmful to LGBTQ+ people," especially when they have made it clear that they don't want to debate him and/or are not cool with this hobby of his.
"Do you eat pork? Do you wear clothes made of blended fabrics?"
Please read this post: Why I Don't Use Leviticus When Explaining The Bible Forbids Homosexual Acts
"Right. The condescension, tone deafness, manipulation...just..wow."
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. The disrespect in the above reply is ironic. He accuses the video of being manipulative, tone deaf, and condescending...yet he is the one who comes across as condescending and tone deaf because he calls Christianity a myth that's founded on "the benighted opinions of primitive people." He didn't stop engaging in his hobby when a reading of the room told him that myself and several other Christians were not OK with him engaging in his hobby of countering the spread and acclaim of "ideologies that are intrinsically harmful to LGBTQ+ people." He mistakenly assumed I vote for politicians who would restrict cvil rights for LGBTQ+ people.
Thanks for reading this!