Friday, August 17, 2007

My final reply to Scott.

The 30 questions I posted to Scott in my last post are answered here:

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/08/17/final-replies-to-yukis-remarks/

I will admit this. All the questions are trick questions. And by his comment and uncovering the answers, you will realise why I submit these questions to him.

I stress this again and again is plain words with his style:

You can be Christian and hold on to your beliefs, but respect those who are Christian and homosexual, and homosexuals from other religions, and do not act on your faith based prejudice.

You can be Christian and hold on to your beliefs, but respect those who are Christian and homosexual, and homosexuals from other religions, and do not act on your faith based prejudice.

You can be Christian and hold on to your beliefs, but respect those who are Christian and homosexual, and homosexuals from other religions, and do not act on your faith based prejudice.

"My whole series of posts began because Yuki linked to and excerpted my post, not the other way around. The unwritten blogger’s code recognizes this as a direct challenge. Commenting on someone’s blog also counts."

I commented on my own post after he commented on the article on Rev Ou Yang, which can be viewed here, and is self explanatory when he includes these words of insult to homosexuals, even those who are Christians, worldwide :

"Let me be clear that I am all for acceptance of people who lead homosexual lifestyles. However, the homosexual lifestyle itself should be renounced and left behind.
The correct way of dealing with this is to accept homosexual persons, but to show them God’s love for them and how God does not want them to live life short of what He intends for them. Visit this link to ex-gay Edmund Smith of Real Love Ministry for how homosexuals can be accepted without condoning sinful homosexuality.
If that doesn’t make you stop feeling homosexul inside, then supress it. I was an angry and horny young man, and I survived 25 years without beating people up or having illicit sex. That’s what self-denial is all about, you can’t break a habit by accepting and feeding it.
The bottom line: You can be gay, but you can’t be Christian and gay.
Or go ahead and remain gay. Open a new religious-congregation building - just don’t call it a church.
Lead the worshippers in prayer - just don’t call yourself a pastor.
And teach your version of religion - just don’t call it Christian.
By professing to the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus for our sins yet continuing to live in wilful sin, you seriously grieve the Holy Spirit. (See the bottom of this post on homosexuality and the Bible for Biblical mentions against homosexuality.)"

Scott says:

"I was intending to let this subject slide with my last post, but Yuki has directed 20 questions personally at me and requested that I answer them. So I will oblige."

Previously Scott said:

"Yuki and myself will not stop debating/arguing this point in the near future. And from the tone of Yuki’s last replies, the discussion seems to be getting quite hot under the collar."

The rest of his comments, set the tone of the answers he gives.

The answers are all self explanatory, but I wish to show our readers something.

Now for the my questions and his answers:

1) Do you feel more comfortable with girls sleeping with girls more than guys sleeping with guys?

"As a heterosexual male, I find girl-on-girl action more tiltillating. However, I find neither guy-guy nor girl-girl any more offensive/non-offensive in and of itself.
Why do I use that double term? What I mean to say is that personally, I do not find any homosexual acts repugnant per se, but at the same time I cannot reconcile them with the Biblical guidelines.
Once more I will state as my defense: I am not any more or less opposed to guys than to girls or vice versa."

Scott answers later at question 30:

30) You hereby state this loud and clear, before God and me: When you see two men holding hands (min) or having sex (max); you feel offended, disgusted and uncomfortable first, long before you think of God, or what God has to say, or pray for them. YES?

"I admit it, yes, in the same way I would feel anger at inconsiderate drivers long before I think of praying that they will be nicer people."

Think about this answer, and this next line:

"But to put a limit on it, I don’t feel personal ‘disgust’ (a very strong word), more of the conviction that it is wrong by God."

2) Do you claim homosexuality as non existant orientation, and just a ‘lifestyle’ based chosen behaviour that consititutes immediate sin, as disagreed by these groups, which agrees by me:

"No, I do not claim that. I am quite convinced that genetics play a part in predetermining the types of sexual attraction. However, I do not believe that it is 100% the root cause."

I repeat the comments he made on his first post:

That after on his first post he claimed the words "homosexual LIFESTYLE" is something to be "renounced and left behind", that you "cannot break the HABIT by accepting and feeding it", and that you cannot be "Gay and Christian", you can only "go on and be gay", and that "homosexuals continue to live in WILLFULL SIN"

"Even if it is decidedly proven that homosexual orientation is entirely inborn, that does not make us free of responsibility for our decisions and actions."

If Scott believes homosexuality is entirely inborn, we would be talking about sins and not arguing natural orientation.

"Zoophiles claim that their preference for bestiality is natural and unchangeable. Paedophiles too. People who have extra-strong sexual drives can blame the hormone levels. They can accept the fact and go on doing what comes ‘naturally’ to them, or they can decide it isn’t right and deny their urges."

"Not to equate homosexuals to zoophiles or criminals (but I am sure you will accuse me of that anyway), but I use zoophiles for the following reason:"

Is there something wrong with this two contrasting statements?

He went on to state:

"What do you, as an self-claimed enlightened LGT follower of Christ, think of having sex with animals?

Is it wrong, repugnant or unnatural? Why do feel so? Note that there is no mention against bestiality in the New Testament, and doubly so Jesus never mentioned it at all. Does this mean having sex with animals is a God given gift? And that anti-animal-sex activists are bigots?"

Equating without equating?

3) Do you disagree with these 477,000 mental and health professionals’ stance? (APA fact sheet)

"In this modern day and age, just as you can claim that every study and survey that shows homosexuality is negative/reversible/mental is influenced and prejudiced by fundamentalists, I can make the counter claim that every study and survey that shows homosexuality is positive/unchangeable/inborn is affected by pro-LGT bias."

He is accusing neutral bodies of mental and health professionals of pro-LGT bias? I never take information from pro-gay Christian sites like religioustolerance.com. It is because THAT would be bias. I always go for neutral. And the studies, as it is already almost widely known, ARE influenced and prejudiced by fundamentalists. I wish he spent more time finding out more than finding a reason to justify himself.

4) Even if science proves homosexuality is a God given orientation, you would still say no because God says so, even though He never said it clearly?

"So let’s say that it IS inborn. Is it God’s specific will, or is it a result of the fall of humanity? Genetic diseases, birth defects, allergies, all of these are inborn and thus not caused by the surroundings. But did God intend for these things in His original plan? Did He intend for ‘procreative’ acts that cannot multiply and fill the earth?
Put it this way: If God had made humanity purely and exclusively homosexual, that would be one way to wipe the earth clean of mankind from the very start. Do you disagree with the biology of that statement?"

He still equate homosexuals with 'the fall of humanity'. We can easily say 'heterosexuallity is caused by the fall of humanity. As for procreation, I wonder if he realises the problems we are having with overpopulation of the world, birth control, abortions, young girls getting pregnant, abandoned children, humans outliving the earth's supplies, etc. etc.

(To his credit, I am impressed that he HAS a bit of knowledge on gender identity vs sexual orientation, as proven in questions 5 and 6. No comments on question 7 self explanatory, question 8 is neutral and consistent.)

9) Do you admit you initiated the first attack the LGT community, when you openly fired on the gay pastor who wants to open a church for LGTs to worship on the 10th of August?

"Bottom line is, I have always felt that in making my post, I was defending my beliefs. Just as you feel that you are defending your own in your posts. I claim that the first salvo was launched by the pastor in question, not me."

(Sometimes I wonder if Scott ever read back what he writes)

A look at all two of his posts shows No signs of Rev Ou Yang attacking the Christian straight community in Malaysia, but Scott DID attack him AND Troy D Perry and his partner.

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/gay-pastor-wants-to-start-church-in-kl/

To Rev Ou Yang:

"Or go ahead and remain gay. Open a new religious-congregation building - just don’t call it a church.
Lead the worshippers in prayer - just don’t call yourself a pastor.
And teach your version of religion - just don’t call it Christian."

It intensifies here:

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/08/13/gay-pastor-leads-service-in-kl/

To Rev Troy D Perry and his partner:

"Perry promising to stay by his partner De Blieck when the latter was diagnosed with HIV? And how does a real Christian justify the free sex that led to getting HIV? How does Perry reconcile the fact that De Blieck must have been having fun on the side?"

"Sirs, you are a disgrace and embarassment to the Christian faith and all the holiness that Christ stands for. Can you seriously, honestly face up to God Himself on that final day and tell Him that you are righteous and sinless?"

(I feel sick reading this)

And to all Christian homosexuals:

"Spiritual and emotional love’, not just sex? I beg to differ, all true Christians show spiritual and emotional love for all mankind. Being gay by definition implies a sexual factor."

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and it again contradicts with what Scott commented earlier in Q2, which he contradicts himself again in Q3.

I am crying writing this. I do not think I can go on.

To summarize, a good read across the few articles he wrote, and the blog to blogs discussion; you would realise inconsistency, double standards, ill perceptions towards homosexuals, favouritism, justifying prejudice, etc. etc. All the questions are linked to one another and the answers are self explanatory.

Scott can twist his words around 'yes i said hijack' then 'no i did not say hijack' all he wants, or ' I am being attacked first' after he launched such scathing verbal towards people of the community. God will judge. I do not wish to be like him. He had already reduced himself to a moronic status.

I am blessed to have known some believers in Christ, who have shown the light to the world. People ask them about their joy in the Lord. They do not need to impose their beliefs, then deny it. And they are homosexuals.

Refer to all of the discussions with what Scott wrote and I wrote, and you would realise why some people are not Christians, they have not met one... or they already met one.... No wonder they said most Buddhists make better people....

I am now close in deciding to renounce myself from being Christ identified in public, and just keep it as a personal relationship with God. I am just too ashamed to be lumped in with such people.

This had been a hurting experience for me. It is a good learning curve though to go head on against this bigotry masked in religion. Will be back once I recovered from this.

Scott says:
I dare say that during this discussion, it is me who has been more level headed, objective and willing to see the other point of view (yours).

Scott will never be level headed, objective, or willing to see the view of anyone who is homosexual, or transsexual. We are all nothing but sex and orgies to him.

("Perry promising to stay by his partner De Blieck when the latter was diagnosed with HIV? And how does a real Christian justify the free sex that led to getting HIV? How does Perry reconcile the fact that De Blieck must have been having fun on the side?"
"Sirs, you are a disgrace and embarassment to the Christian faith and all the holiness that Christ stands for. Can you seriously, honestly face up to God Himself on that final day and tell Him that you are righteous and sinless?"
"Being gay by definition implies a sexual factor"
*Scott Thong*)

Scott Thong could just say sorry and the topic is closed. But Scott will always be unrepentant, and owes Our Saviour with us a huge apology for the rest of his life.

Have a good weekend. Take care.

No comments: