7 of 29 people found the following review helpful
A Dangerous Trojan Horse,
This review is from: Love Is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation with the Gay Community (Paperback)
As an ex-gay evangelical who has very good friends who are gay I was hoping for a positive balance between the compassion of Christ and Biblical theology. Instead I read a wishy washy book full of instruction about how to extand sloppy grace to people. Marin has accepted the pro-gay propoganda on science (you know the stuff that says people are born gay even though there is no evidence to back this claim up) and theology (homosexuality isn't really condemned in the Bible, we can ignore the Old Testament and Paul didn't know what he was talking about) without thinking so fails to hold a Biblical standard. The fact that the pro-gay community, including Obama's Anti-prejudice Tzar and Changing Attitudes, love Marin should tell us the danger of this book.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-6 of 6 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 7 Dec 2010 10:39:53 GMT
Paul Bacon says:
You seem very anti-gay for somebody with "very good friends who are gay". I can only assume that they know your feelings on the subject and are more compassionate and tolerant than you come across as being.
In reply to an earlier post on 22 Mar 2011 15:07:46 GMT
Mr. Phelim Mcintyre says:
In reply to an earlier post on 22 Mar 2011 15:38:01 GMT
Mr. Phelim Mcintyre says:
In reply to an earlier post on 7 Jul 2011 04:34:16 BDT
I have read what you've said and haven't read much of anything that Marin's written other than a blog post or two. Certainly nothing that's led me to make up my mind about him. Not only do you come across as intolerant, but as conflicted, angry and willing to believe all kinds of false witness against others if it supports your beliefs.
I look at Marin as someone who may or may not be trustworthy. I see you as someone in pain, deserving of compassion and prayer.
In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jul 2011 17:08:18 BDT
Last edited by the author on 16 Jul 2011 21:00:23 BDT
William Fisher says:
"I would challenge you Paul to go and look at the accusations that Marin makes about his critics and see who is the intollerant [sic] one."
Now, I call that interesting, Mr McIntyre. I, too, have reservations about Andrew Marin's position, but of the opposite kind to yours. They are based not on his book, which I haven't read, but on a video of one of his addresses that I have seen. But quite frankly, complaints about the accusations that others make about their critics and charges of intolerance don't sound too well coming from you.
When a professor of psychiatry at one of Britain's top universities wrote on Dr Warren Throckmorton's blog (13/05/09) that there was no evidence for the theories espoused by NARTH and that such theories were harmful to families - which they undoubtedly are - you didn't just disagree, as was your right. You wrote:
"Dr [----] is lying when he states that there is no evidence to support Narth's viewpoint - and he knows it. ... Prof [----] is toxic and should be reported to the proper authorities and struck off for poor research and damaging the mental health profession."
When Warren invited you to identify the evidence "that demonstrates a break in father-son relationship between 1.5 and 3 leads to homosexual attractions", you declined to do so, merely referring to "COMMENTS" about research in Arthur Abba Goldberg's book "Light in the Closet" (how much is that worth, for heaven's sake?) and courteously adding:
"Don't hide behind arrogance and `I'm out for the truth' it doesn't convince me."
Warren, unfazed by your strident rudeness, politely reminded you that all that he was asking you to do was to identify the three best studies that provide empirical support for NARTH's "reparative drive" theory. You replied in your customary decorous language:
"Sorry Warren - but your arguements [sic] are less old hat more than leaky sieve. I am wondering what your motivation really is and the more I read of your work like that of Dr [----] I doubt it is truth."
Warren rightly replied that his motivation should not matter if you could produce the evidence for which he had asked, and repeated his request. You responded by merely reiterating the theory and noting how much importance Dr Nicolosi of NARTH attaches to it and also adverting to Elizabeth Moberly's armchair theories (you might just as well argue for the theory that imaginary lines between points of light in the sky influence our lives and destinies by emphasizing the importance that astrologers attach to it), but again failed to accede to his polite request, instead referring vaguely to "nearly 100 years of research showing this to be a factor" and graciously adding that Warren was "rapidly gaining a reputantion [sic] as a Judas."
Later on, you made the extraordinary assertion that people have been murdered for trying to "leave the gay life style". Warren observed that this was quite a claim and asked if you could provide evidence for it. (You have made a similar claim on your own blog, but have failed to cite a single identifiable case, although invited to do so.)
Your reply to that failed once again - need I say it? - to name the three best (or indeed any) studies supporting NARTH's "reparative drive" theory, and likewise failed to provide any evidence for your bizarre story about people being murdered for attempting to become "ex-gay" or to indicate where such evidence might be found. It did, however, include the following respectful words:
"Warren - I believe you are a FAKE! ... Rather than throwing mud at people and claiming it is because you are for truth you sit there trying to make yourself look big at the expense of others. You are not big and you are not clever. ... I'm not going to waste my time on someone who has such a narrow point of view he can't see his own self-righteousness."
Isn't there something in the Sermon on the Mount about first casting the beam out of your own eye...? Furthermore, it completely escapes my understanding how any reasonable person could construe Warren's invitation to you to identify objective data supporting your position as "self-righteousness", as "throwing mud" or as trying to make himself "look big at the expense of others".
"I also counsel people struggling with homosexual feelings and also spend time with their families helping them come to terms with what has happened."
Being gay isn't something that "happens", like a motor accident or a gas explosion. That aside, how do you help their families? By telling them that being gay is some kind of neurosis or psychological dysfunction for which their families are, at least partly, to blame? Very helpful indeed, I'm sure.
"I am for truth, and I know the truth hurts."
I've lost count now of the number of times that you've said or written those or equivalent words. I strongly suspect that the word "truth", as used by you in the context of discussions about homosexuality, has a special, esoteric meaning which is not accessible to benighted, unsaved, non-fundamentalist individuals like me.
In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jul 2011 12:36:41 BDT
Nom de Plume says:
I hope in time you can find the grace and healing to let go of your anger, from whatever painful experiences it originates, and to spread the love of God of which you speak, by accepting both yourself and others as God's creation.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›