Comments on: Gagnon Rants On And On

By: Andy

Andy — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:36:55 +0000

Timothy you are clearly out of your league in attempting to debate Prof. Gagnon. His points are far more weighty and nuanced than you imply, and the biblical and theological evidence against homosexuality is overwhelming.

Regards,
Andy

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:25:26 +0000

Wow, Timothy. You certainly must be doing right to have drawn such vitriol from Gagnon! Do you think he ever stops to consider what his vehement obsession on this sole topic (homosexuality) says about him to the people around him? Or what it implies about his own sexuality? As we used to say back in the day, “i think his slip is showing!”

By: toujoursdan

toujoursdan — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:40:16 +0000

Keep it up. Gagnon is oft cited by the Anglican/Episcopal right-wing in their assertions.

By: Rick Brentlinger

Rick Brentlinger — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:03:44 +0000

“…literalists are going to delight to discover that the story of the Roman Centurian was not at all as Scripture reports it…”

Rob Gagnon holds many odd beliefs which conflict with the beliefs of the conservative evangelicals who support him. For example, Gagnon embraces the Documentary Hypothesis which, among other things, posits that Moses did NOT write the Pentateuch, an assertion which would certainly surprise Jesus, Luke 24:27, John 5:46.

In the New Testament, Gagnon believes (sola fide), in the imaginary Q document, the allegedly lost textual source for Matthew and Luke’s Gospels. Most of the evangelicals who depend on Gagnon’s scholarship vehemently disagree with him about Q.

A staunch Presbyterian, Gagnon nevertheless rejects Presbyterian and reformed doctrine by asserting that saved people can lose their salvation, see pp. 282, 288, 338 of his book. Strange, very strange.

Rick Brentlinger

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:00:29 +0000

David wrote: * I don’t like the term ‘anti-gay’ as it is somewhat of a smear, unless one is referring to out-and-out bigotry. So I use circumlocutions like ‘traditional view’ for those whose objections are at least partly grounded in reason and thought.

I have yet to hear any comment against the ending of this stupid prejudice and the full inclusion of gay people in our society that ever has ANYTHING to do with reason or thought, unless it is these two:

my reason is that I hate queers.

My thought is that book written thousands of years ago that I think i might understand if it were, shall we say, CLEAR, is a good guide to life in the 21st century, except for the parts that I disagree iwth because they are not. Have some ham.

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:04:03 +0000

Robert Gagnon, c’mon if Jesus really cared so much about stopping the world from becoming filled with same-sex couples, wouldn’t his scripture have addressed this in a very straight-forward way? (and we all know that it doesn’t). If you say, well, it was a different time when he lived, I’d say, isn’t Jesus the all-knowing fella who talks to future generations? Where’s the beef (in scripture), Gagnon? Do you really think he wants us sitting around arguing about this when we’ve got a war waging that has already killed thousands of people? What would Jesus think of that? Oh . . . right, Jesus told Bush to go kick some ass in the Middle East.

By: Samantha Davis

Samantha Davis — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 04:59:57 +0000

You know, I kind of think Gangon rather feeds of the attention.

By: Patrick ONeill

Patrick ONeill — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 04:01:13 +0000

Well as a christian then, your problem will always be that as a gay man any arguments that you might make about bible translations not being homophobic are seen as being in your self interest – and rightly so.

By: David

David — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 03:43:21 +0000

I can’t respond with anything other than the typical internet ‘ROTFL’. I had to do a double-take when I noticed that his pdf file there is entitled ‘homosexBoxTurtleKincaid6′ (I didn’t know you were a homosex!).

Personally I find the idea of the centurion having a sexual relationship with his pais quite far-fetched for a number of reasons, and I’d agree with Ralph Blair’s statement that the Bible is an empty closet (while similarly approving of a pro-gay theological stance). But I simply do not have the willpower to read through Gagnon’s essay. If he could stick to scholarship, reason, and a humble but assured attitude, I might find it engaging. As it is, it’s not worth the time.

I have been a bit surprised by Gagnon; while I’ve found his views (only from articles, I haven’t gotten around to reading his tome) rather poorly defended – especially concerning his great dependence on Genesis as a model and a mystical aspect (to which real personalities are molded, or stereotyped) of complementarianism – I’d thought he was at least one of the more level-headed folks advocating the Traditional View*, and not so much plain anti-gay. I have been disappointed.

* I don’t like the term ‘anti-gay’ as it is somewhat of a smear, unless one is referring to out-and-out bigotry. So I use circumlocutions like ‘traditional view’ for those whose objections are at least partly grounded in reason and thought.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 03:39:04 +0000

Patrick,

As a Christian, I doubt that your advice will be very useful to me.

JJ,

Thanks.