Protestants, do you know that Franklin Graham said this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AbideWithMe said:
That last is a very good point. I think** the larger culture has little idea that someone could have SSA but choose chastity, and many Evangelicals go on that cultural premise.**
Click to expand...
Exactly.
AbideWithMe said:
As a sorry example, I did look up the rest of what Peter quoted, and it was from an interview with James Dobson. Graham’s fuller statements made me think he probably means “gay lifestyle”, though I can’t be sure. However, Dobson, who really, really should know better, said something ridiculous: that bisexual means a person who has “lots of sex” with both sexes. I don’t know if I should laugh or cry.
Click to expand...
Oh dear. Hahaha:p
 
AbideWithMe said:
That last is a very good point. I think the larger culture has little idea that someone could have SSA but choose chastity, and many Evangelicals go on that cultural premise.

As a sorry example, I did look up the rest of what Peter quoted, and it was from an interview with James Dobson. Graham’s fuller statements made me think he probably means “gay lifestyle”, though I can’t be sure. However, Dobson, who really, really should know better, said something ridiculous: that bisexual means a person who has “lots of sex” with both sexes. I don’t know if I should laugh or cry.
Click to expand...
A stand-up comic could not do better than that remark by James Dobson.
 
Peter_J said:
Protestants – more specifically, American Protestants who are familiar with Franklin Graham – do you know that he said the following? “You cannot stay gay and continue to call yourself a Christian. You can’t do it.”

Yes, that’s right. He did not say that, to be a Christian, a gay person has to be chaste, or even that he/she has to stay in the closet, but rather that the gay person has to become ex-gay in order to be a Christian.
Click to expand...
Many people see the definition of “gay” as actively engaged in gay sex- not a person’s attraction. Perhaps that’s graham’s working definition
 
petra22 said:
Yes, my DH and I have the argument all the time whether born or made… no winners…
Click to expand...
As a gay Catholic, I can tell you and your husband that I have always been attracted to men. As far back as I can remember. And my childhood was the same as others who have been straight, gay, bi and everything else.
 
AbideWithMe said:
Graham’s fuller statements made me think he probably means “gay lifestyle”, though I can’t be sure.
Click to expand...
I won’t lie to you, I don’t have any particular insight into anything that Franklin Graham might have meant to say; but I do know the difference between gay people and gay sex. Franklin Graham said that if someone is going to be a Christian, he or she cannot keep being gay, not that he or she cannot keep having gay sex.
 
AbideWithMe, not meaning to get off-topic but I have to ask: how would it be if I said “All Protestants are led by the Devil” (which I have seen claimed on CAF, but that’s beside the point) and then justified it by saying that anyone who’s *not *led by the Devil doesn’t fit my definition of “Protestant”?
 
Peter_J said:
I won’t lie to you, I don’t have any particular insight into anything that Franklin Graham might have meant to say; but I do know the difference between gay people and gay sex. Franklin Graham said that if someone is going to be a Christian, he or she cannot keep being gay, not that he or she cannot keep having gay sex.
Click to expand...
But do you understand that in most people’s minds, including evangelicals, the two are the same thing? That is what I have been trying to say (see my previous post at #34 🙂 ). (I was an evangelical not that terribly long ago, FWIW.)

That is why you can’t throw the word “gay” around and assume everyone else means the same thing as you do. Ironically, this is why I give Franklin Graham the benefit of the doubt that he was referring to actions, although it may not be on his radar that there are same-sex attracted Christians who live chastely. If he is aware of them, he likely would not think of them as “gay.”
 
EnglishTeacher said:
But do you understand that in most people’s minds, including evangelicals, the two are the same thing? That is what I have been trying to say (see my previous post at #34 🙂 ). (I was an evangelical not that terribly long ago, FWIW.)

That is why you can’t throw the word “gay” around and assume everyone else means the same thing as you do. Ironically, this is why I give Franklin Graham the benefit of the doubt that he was referring to actions, although it may not be on his radar that there are same-sex attracted Christians who live chastely. If he is aware of them, he likely would not think of them as “gay.”
Click to expand...
He’s that educated that he can’t differentiate? Has he ever made a clarifying statement about orientation vs actions?

If most evangelicals make that mistake, they are WRONG. Why is this so difficult? They are objectively wrong.
 
StudentMI said:
He’s that educated that he can’t differentiate? Has he ever made a clarifying statement about orientation vs actions?

If most evangelicals make that mistake, they are WRONG. Why is this so difficult? They are objectively wrong.
Click to expand...
Maybe we are just talking past each other. Yes, they are wrong in failing to make a distinction, and it is good if we can educate people on this issue where opportunity arises.

But the OP seemed to be trying to stir people up into thinking that Graham meant something that I am 90% sure he didn’t, looking at the context. Evangelicals tend to use “gay” as most of the culture uses the term, and to most people “gay” implies the sexual activity that goes along with the attraction. It’s confusing, for sure. That is one reason I prefer the term “same-sex attracted” over “gay.” While a clumsier term, at least it is more precise in meaning.
 
StudentMI said:
He’s that educated that he can’t differentiate? Has he ever made a clarifying statement about orientation vs actions?

If most evangelicals make that mistake, they are WRONG. Why is this so difficult? They are objectively wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes, the two are objectively distinct, but I can’t think of any non-religious people I know who would make the distinction, either. If I asked some non religious friends how they think of “gay”, they’d be thinking of being attracted to the same sex and desiring to act, if possible, on that attraction in either a promiscuous or faithful way, the same as they think most people want to act on their heterosexual desires in either a promiscuous or faithful way. (I spend time with groups of artist-friends and horse people, and I’ve heard this as a topic of discussion.)
 
StudentMI said:
He’s that educated that he can’t differentiate? Has he ever made a clarifying statement about orientation vs actions?
Click to expand...
Hi StudentMI. I’m slightly reluctant to proceed further right now for two reasons: first, in past conversations I’ve found AbideWithMe to be extremely reasonable, so I think I owe it to her to give her the benefit of the doubt and a chance to respond further. And second, I’m hopeful that more Protestant posters will chime in (this thread is, after all, only 11 hours old).

But that being said, what I am *tentatively *thinking at this point is: Maybe Franklin Graham isn’t the real problem. I mean, why should he bother to differentiate or clarify if even reasonable Protestants (e.g. AbideWithMe) are going to make excuses for him like in post #37?
 
Peter_J said:
Hi StudentMI. I’m slightly reluctant to proceed further right now for two reasons: first, in past conversations I’ve found AbideWithMe to be extremely reasonable, so I think I owe it to her to give her the benefit of the doubt and a chance to respond further.
Click to expand...
Edit: Just realized that she posted again.
 
AbideWithMe said:
Yes, the two are objectively distinct, but I can’t think of any non-religious people I know who would make the distinction, either. If I asked some non religious friends how they think of “gay”, they’d be thinking of being attracted to the same sex and desiring to act, if possible, on that attraction in either a promiscuous or faithful way, the same as they think most people want to act on their heterosexual desires in either a promiscuous or faithful way. (I spend time with groups of artist-friends and horse people, and I’ve heard this as a topic of discussion.)
Click to expand...
So how many times has it happened that you’ve told a fellow Protestant that you’re straight, and had him or her tell you “You must repent of being straight before marriage if you want to call yourself a Christian”?

:rolleyes:
 
EnglishTeacher said:
Maybe we are just talking past each other. Yes, they are wrong in failing to make a distinction, and it is good if we can educate people on this issue where opportunity arises.

But the OP seemed to be trying to stir people up into thinking that Graham meant something that I am 90% sure he didn’t, looking at the context. Evangelicals tend to use “gay” as most of the culture uses the term, and to most people “gay” implies the sexual activity that goes along with the attraction. It’s confusing, for sure. That is one reason I prefer the term “same-sex attracted” over “gay.” While a clumsier term, at least it is more precise in meaning.
Click to expand...
Yes… and some people think the activity is usually promiscuous, not faithful. When I was in art school, I saw solely the opportunistic promiscuous activity, while the heterosexual students were at least trying to form exclusive, lasting relationships. I had seen quietly faithful gay relationships a few times before, so I was aware of that possibility, but the flashy opportunistic promiscuity has stamped its own more noticable impression into the culture.
 
AbideWithMe said:
Yes… and some people think the activity is usually promiscuous, not faithful. When I was in art school, I saw solely the opportunistic promiscuous activity, while the heterosexual students were at least trying to form exclusive, lasting relationships. I had seen quietly faithful gay relationships a few times before, so I was aware of that possibility, but the flashy opportunistic promiscuity has stamped its own more noticable impression into the culture.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the heterosexuals are looking for the objective good while those of us less fortunate are just hooking up. Except for the rare faithful gay relationship.

There is a middle ground. Thankfully.
 
Peter_J said:
Hi StudentMI. I’m slightly reluctant to proceed further right now for two reasons: first, in past conversations I’ve found AbideWithMe to be extremely reasonable, so I think I owe it to her to give her the benefit of the doubt and a chance to respond further. And second, I’m hopeful that more Protestant posters will chime in (this thread is, after all, only 11 hours old).

But that being said, what I am *tentatively *thinking at this point is: Maybe Franklin Graham isn’t the real problem. I mean, why should he bother to differentiate or clarify if even reasonable Protestants (e.g. AbideWithMe) are going to make excuses for him like in post #37?
Click to expand...
Wow, Peter. I think of you as a reasonable poster, too, but, holy cow, how was I making excuses for Franklin Graham? I’m trying to give an explanation of how I’ve noticed people, religious and non-religious, use “gay.” Giving a description of something I’ve observed is not making an excuse. I said before I’m not sure what he meant by “gay”; that’s reasonable (not excuse-making) because people do use the word to mean different things. Also, when I was reading his fuller comments, a meaning of “gay activity” seemed to fit the rest of the comments better, though not perfectly…but then a meaning of “gay inclination” (such as where he says gay people can go to heaven) didn’t fit all his comments perfectly, either.
 
StudentMI said:
Ah yes, the heterosexuals are looking for the objective good while those of us less fortunate are just hooking up. Except for the rare faithful gay relationship.

There is a middle ground. Thankfully.
Click to expand...
I’m sure the gay men I knew in art school didn’t see themselves as less fortunate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top