Tag: Christianity

Commentary – Love, really?

5 comments

Rony Tan has certainly not only caused a great rift among Christians and practitioners of other faiths with his comments on them, he has also caused a small rift within the Christian community itself with his remarks on homosexual people.

Whatever objection to the manner Rony Tan present his comments, I will take the matter up with him in person. I would not write a lengthly blog post condemning him, or ‘conduct a trial by social media’ – something which I have been against for a long time. While I will make no apology for Christianity saying that it is the only religion with the answer (to morality, the question of life and everything), I will admit that it is offensive for Rony Tan to ridicule how other religions present their answers. I do feel some shame and anger, because in spite of all the reminder from our own leaders to be sensitive to another person’s faith when evangelising, a leader of the Protestant Christian faith has done the exact opposite.

Other than with a few of my fellow believers, I have kept from discussing the matter with anyone from another religion. I would have kept it that way, until a chat with a non-Christian friend led to that topic.

With some apprehension I told this friend that Rony Tan has criticised two other religions, and that the remarks themselves were made readily available on the public domain. I told him my opinion that Rony Tan is not the first, nor would he be the last to make similar comments. I had expected nothing more than an angry reaction from him for my indifference to such a serious matter.

What surprised me was his reaction when he said, “I don’t really understand why are all these people upset. What he has said is something that a large part of the population would have considered as correct. All I could say was that he put it on the Internet so he ‘dai sei’ (Cantonese 抵死 – meaning ‘deserved to die’). What I meant is that all religions are somewhat closed in nature and I would find it news if a medium for a certain Chinese deity tells one of the followers looking for an advice to go seek a second opinion from Jesus Christ.”

Upon hearing his ‘second opinion’, we broke out in laughter. Though I doubt my friend was suggesting that all religions are intolerant of one another, he was simply pointing out that no religion (or someone of a certain faith) would actually suggest that another religion has a better answer. His comments hit me with the realization that those ‘crying for blood’ over Rony Tan’s comments suddenly don’t look very ‘open minded’ anymore.

Still, it is my opinion that an apology should go freely only to the Buddhists and Taoists. Anger will make them to close their minds to the message of Jesus Christ and they are lost to God forever. In spite of the Christian opinion of their beliefs, Christians do not deny that a large part of those beliefs also teach them to be morally upright people. In fact, I am in the opinion that these people ‘do by nature things required by the law (of God)’ (Romans 2:12).

However, on Rony Tan’s remarks on homosexuality, I cannot and will not stand with those who would go so far to spread a message of appeasement – especially in appeasing those who demand the right and the legal right to do what God has considered abominable.

The ‘message of appeasement’ masquerades itself as the Christian message of love. In some version of this false message, we are to close a blind eye even to sin – as long as it happens away in privacy and among consenting individuals or we should ‘leave them alone’ because they are ‘they simply seek to love’. The fact is Christians have always ‘left them alone’ and we only began to speak up when there is an attempt to legalised their deviant sexual acts or teach it as normal. Have pastors constantly preach against homosexuality before the furor surrounding the repeal of Section 377A and the fiasco at AWARE?

A brother-in-Christ once asked me this after reading another version of this false message, “Will you love someone so much that you will not tell him the truth simply because that truth might hurt him or offend him?” It is a question that those who spread the false message should bear in mind. The failure to warn someone from danger which could result in his death is a sin – the sin of omission. Do not forget that the Christian message is not entirely about love, it is also a message for us to repent, i.e. to turn away away from sin and seek the forgiveness of God.

In another version of the message of appeasement, someone has said we have failed to love our neighbours. And in explaining who our neighbour is, he cites Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25 ~ 37). The phrase ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ is first found in Leviticus 19:18. I would like to point out in Leviticus 19:17, it is written: ‘Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.’ It is somewhat amusing that the proponent of the false message applies his definition of neighbour in Leviticus 19:17 only against fellow Christians, but not against the rest of the world. It probably also never occurred to the person abusing Jesus’ parable that the love referred to here simply means meeting the needs of one’s neighbours.

Based on the Good Samaritan Parable, which Christian has been like the priest or the Levite who refused to help the homosexuals in need? Is there any church which would bar a homosexual from just coming to church and listen to the message of Jesus Christ even though it may preach against their deviant sexual act?

What differs between Christians and homosexuals is the definition of needs. Christians believe that the homosexuals need to turn away from their deviant sexual acts and learn that it is considered sinful by God. While Christians have long lost the fight against sexual immorality, it does not mean that we won’t continue to fight when it threatens to expand its influence into our daily lives. After all, even non-Christians would stand up and resist when prostitution extends itself from its traditional strongholds into our neighbourhood!

If homosexuals disagree with the above perspective, there can be no compromise. Love does not extend into condoning or endorsing deviant sexual acts / sin. Do not expect Christians to give or calling us hateful because we are only defending the values that we hold dear. Homosexual activists make it sound like Christians are taking away some of their so-called ‘rights’ which never existed.

It is sad that even some Christians fall for that which I considered the greatest deception of our time and joined them in propagating that falsehood. Be warned, there are serious consequences in leading Jesus’ sheep astray.

Recommended Reads:
Insanepoly: Dare To Be Daft

Daily Discourse: Christianity vs Homosexuality

5 comments

Set piece (n) – A situation, activity, or speech planned beforehand and carried out according to a prescribed pattern or formula.

From the debate on Section 377A, to FOTF, to the current squabble at AWARE, each and everytime, Christianity found itself caught in a set piece and in the defensive. Christians are vilified as homophobes, called names, portrayed as uncaring bigots, insensitive, backwards, and brainless religious fanatics by their ‘Christian-o-phobe’ opponents.

In everyone of those situations, extremist elements of the LGBT community deliberately set the stage and define the tone of the debate – i.e. Christianity vs Homosexuality. Christians and protestant churches are sadly drawn into a meaningless debate and repeatedly portrayed as the main enemy of homosexuality. But in essence, Christians have almost no need to respond to these allegations and when they feel compelled to do so, they can respond in a manner in which they do not compromise on their core beliefs and yet avoid the labeling.

Take Section 377A for example. When the Council of Churches made their stand clear about homosexuality, Christians are therefore caught in the jaws of the vice of ‘Christianity vs Homosexuality’.

Section 377A was introduced in 1938 to criminalise all other non-penetrative sexual acts between men. ‘Gross indecency’ is a broad term which, from a review of past cases in Singapore, has been applied to mutual masturbation, genital contact, or even lewd behaviour without direct physical contact.

How the matter degenerated into one of Christians vs Homosexuals is quite beyond me. It is a law that specifically criminalise male homosexual acts in public, not one that targets the entire LGBT.

Perhaps like I was for some time, this is confused with the now repealed Section 377 which also covered sodomy. However, Section 377 in particular is not a homosexual specific law, but would also target heterosexuals performing those acts – for e.g. a husband forcing his unwilling wife into sodomy or fellatio or a pervert sodomising a little boy. Granted, that other legislations may be used to covered these aspects, Church / Christians would have done better to point out that this is the core matter they want to defend, which may thus find more acceptance among even non-Christians, and leave the extremists of the LGBT to scream at the four winds. On top of which, Section 377 in particular covers also other manners of sexual acts repulsive to most human beings – necrophilia, bestiality and pedophilia.

Thus, when I looked at how the debate continue to degenerate and the deeper Christians / Church falls into the trap, it really makes me wonder that whether Christians fall into the logic trap that their morality is superior to that of non-believers and even if that maybe true – do they actually believe that non-believers are completely lacking in morality? Even those who do not believe have a certain conscience too, yes? Clearly there are certain things that even common people would find repulsive and Christianity would do a lot better pointing that out! Even when not everyone can be made a Christian, Jesus commanded us to be the salt and light of the world and isn’t doing our part to prevent a further slide into immorality doing just that?

And before any one starts screaming that I am saying that homosexuality is immoral, let me explain. Take for e.g. when Christians brought up the matter of the spread of AIDS or STD/VDs as a point in defense, they should point out the core issue here is opposition to promiscuity. And promiscuity not only among homosexuals, but also heterosexuals. At the very minimum, even when Christianity may not agree with LGBT, Christianity is still for faithfulness between partners, and the question now to those LGBT beating their chest against Christianity will be – Are you in support of a promiscuous lifestyle that even when most parts of society disagree?

Christians should really waste no more time debating why there is an issue with homosexual sex when it is sex between two consenting adults. After all, as much as homosexuals are entitled to how they want their sex life to be, Christians are entitled to their right to disagree. It is the same as how Christians would disagree with a compulsive gambler or one going to the prostitutes but we see far less conflict coming from that. So, let’s freaking just agree to disagree, forever, and move on to the next and more important issue. Is it not the same with homosexuals, when even most heterosexuals would be upset about unfaithful partners?

I am not suggesting that all LGBT is promiscuous, but clearly when they asked to be viewed normally, then I would really take a step back, not as a Christian but as any other human being, and attempt to consider all aspects of homosexuality with a heterosexual mindset. Do LGBT not agree that promiscuity is a real issue, be it for homosexuals or heterosexuals?

Do we all not put our feet down on promiscuity, which may destroy any relationship – both heterosexual and homosexual? Does society in general not frown upon people who goes around hitting on partners for nothing more than to satisfy their lust? Clearly the image of swingers going around looking for partners, is repulsive to many. When homosexual swingers hit on even straight people, does that not go forth to present homosexuality in a bad image? What fault is there for Christianity to point that out? Or is the LGBT actually suggesting to us all that promiscuity is alright, or in fact, exclusively theirs?

Next, the matter of FOTF. Again FOTF is shown to be a Christian organisation with programs against LGBT – as such, it is anti-LGBT. Yet again the specter of Christian homophobia is raised to vilify Christians. But look deeper at the matter, if it has been a organisation called FOPH (Focus of Personal Health), with programs that encourages people to focus on health and give up on smoking and fatty food, is FOPH thus anti-smokers and anti-obese people? Certainly, I find less outrage in smokers being treated worse than common criminals – outcast from pubs and public buildings, and cornered to a limited space to smoke even in open-air eateries.Why is that? If we are talking about inclusiveness, clearly we have left the smokers out.

Finally, the AWARE matter. It annoys me to no end that the Straits Stooge Times has dug up much significant details not just about the faith of the new ExCo, but has invaded their privacy by listing who their spouse are, their occupation and the number of children they have. No one considered that an invasion of privacy and even applaud the Stooge Times for it, over nothing more than the allegation that the new ExCo will be less inclusive. (Surprisingly, other than the fact she has been an ex-president of AWARE, there is very little said about a particular Dana Lim, whose name has appeared in the very first article, and now in a video exhorting people to turn up for the AWARE EOGM on May 2nd.)

But what is the issue here other that the fact that the ExCo has been Christians? The matter become a problem because Christians have repeatedly allowed the brown shirts of the LGBT to continue labeling and portraying them as anti-LGBT by default. The Stooge Times clearly did them a ‘great favor’ by digging up past letters on the Section 377 debate. To put it in an analogy, it is as if a cheerful butcher at the market has been portrayed as one taking joy in chopping parts dead animals, will in effect definitely be a sadistic murderer.

Has the public forgotten that the new ExCo hasn’t even done anything, other than their ‘hostile take over’? I would have thought that even common criminals are assumed innocent until proven guilty. But yet the new ExCo has been judged as being an exclusive club, being non-inclusive and would be thus not helpful to non-Christian and not just lesbian women too.

Woo… just how the goal posts have shifted from the earlier Christianity vs LGBT now to Christianity vs the world! I am amazed at how the tactics get dirtier day by day and sadly no one has noticed this. Then someone like Gwee Li Sui scores an own goal. Reminds me of a scene in Hamburger Hill, where the Marines were in the midst of taking the position and there comes a UH-1H gunship which machine-gunners gunned down the Marines. Thank you very much, Gwee.

There are of course some Christians (and Christians on both sides of the debate), who would not agree with some of my views here. But it is my considered opinion that it is high time Christianity avoid getting itself into such set pieces, and when they do get into it, evolves new tactics to get themselves out of the situation and come out gunning, scoring some goals of their own.

Recommended Reads:
Call it Grace: Confronting Idols
Where Bears Roam Free: Sectarian Christians replaced by Sectarian Gays – So what’s the difference?