Bret Lythgoe, it is both good of you and good for you to have written the following:

o “I feel deeply ashamed and guilty for the whole thing, and my hope, is that you can forgive me.”

o “i have been miserable with guilt the last couple days!”

I sincerely commend you.

Therefore, I accept your statement that you were not displaying dishonesty, cowardly behavior or insecurity. I was wrong, when I said you were.

My hope, is to mend what has happened here. I feel deeply ashamed and guilty for the whole thing, and my hope, is that you can forgive me. I, as well, have been going through a lot in my life as well, but for privacy sake, I choose not to get into, and it has made me a little more on “edge”, than normal. But that’s no excuse!

Again, thank you, and I’m sorry. Sometimes these things get out of hand. In my attempt to defend myself, I realized that I was not following Christ’s example. I was being selfish.

Unbelievable. I do refuse to see many of the points I’ve brought up. Talk about “deeply offensive.” Sheesh.

With respect to that “deeply offensive” comparison that you say I brought up, you weren’t reading me carefully enough, Bret. It was a conditional statement in a certain context of argument. I was saying all along that if that was what you believed, then certain conclusions followed, conclusions that I knew neither you nor I would go along with (that murder and stealing are equivalent, for example). My purpose in that was to demonstrate to you that just as you couldn’t (and wouldn’t) believe their equivalency, neither should you assume that I believed in the equivalency of homosexual practices with the other members of that list. If I wasn’t clear enough on that in #54, I did explain it in #85.

But you have continued to charge me with ongoing misrepresentations, even though I have stated my correction to clarify the apparent (not real) misrepresentation.

You have even continued to pound on me (comments 107) for mentioning my credentials, even though I conceded that point immediately.

And you have accused me over and over of being uncharitable!

Thank you for the thoughtful blog. I appreciate your attempt to expand our thinking on this subject. I found your statement: “The hope I would suggest we offer instead is that God can satisfy regardless” to be of great value and will try to use that mindset in all of my dealings with my fellows.

I am a simple, practical man.

I believe that one can be gay and be a committed believer.

I believe that regardless of your orientation that all believers are called to sexual chastity outside of marriage.

I believe that too many of us have made homosexual sexual activity a more heinous sin than heterosexual promiscuity. God hates all of my sin, He has no “economy” of sin.

I think that God’s plan for marriage is between one man and woman.

I think that the faux-intellectual deconstruction exhibited by some here is foolishness.

Look, I want to have a fruitful, mature dialog with you. I think we all, myself included, should be more careful in how we read others comments, for we comment. In a nutshell, Tom, you kept implying or saying that I was claiming you were equating all of those sins, and I wasn’t saying you were doing that, and any fair reading of my comments, would show that, and if you still can’t see that, well, I’m suprised.

Why would you need to cite your credentials, in order to refute my claim that reparative therapy was wrong? Why not just give an argument? I interprete, not just you, but anyone, who (I’ve also seen you do this with another commenter) cites their credentials, when an argument is better, as insecure, in that activity. Perhaps you’re not being insecure, in that. But you stated that you (in 96) felt “some fear” in allowing your comments to be allowed, could this not be consrutued by reasonable people as insecure?

Now, your apology, show to me that, fundamentally, you’re an honest, secure, and couragous person. One’s character is never defined by singular actions, when, overall, one’s behavior is different. Based on what I have seen of you, over the last few months, you are a decent, honest, couragous (as I said, earlier, with respect to you unwillingness to capitulate on your gay issue satance) and secure. Which was why I was so suprised that you kept misrepresenting me, and moreover, deleted your own comments. Frankly, I was, and remain dismayed, and disappointed that you did that. Only you, know why you did these things, and I hope you’re being honest with yourself.

Yor continous charge of “character assassination” is deeply offensive, to me, because it’s manifestly untrue. Why? Because character, as Aristotle stated, is a result of numerous behaviors, that result in habits, that, combined with mental intent, create character. In my assessment, you are a person, Tom, of very good moral character. Particular behaviors, do not necessarily translate into a character trait. So, please stop claiming that I’m engaging in “character assassination”. It’s manifestly untrue, and I won’t tolerate it. As I said, my claims, concerning your particular behaviors, were based on my honest assessment. I could be wrong, and others may disagree. But, I won’t be pressured into making a retraction, that I don’t believe.

One thing I will apologize for, is in my last comment, I stated that you were engaging in the fallacy from authority, by citing your credentials, and not giving an argument, regarding reparative therapy. I did the same thing. I cited the American psychological Association, and The American Psychiatric Association, being against reparative therapy, without additionally providing an argument for why this is so, so I also engaged in the fallacy from authority.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Deeply ashamed.