A Fundamentalist Christian’s response to It Gets Better Project

Growing up, religion was a big part of my life. At the time of my birth my name, Emmanuel, was inspired by my parents recent conversion into Christianity. In short, I left the church after 16 years of sitting through hate-filled sermons on homosexuality. A word that I didn’t know what it meant, but that I identified with since I was 11 years-old. As I’ve gotten older I’ve met other gays with similar upbringings and have found some comfort in sharing my “church” experience with them.

I came across this video by Josh Guzman that spoke to me on a personal level. After hearing about the hate crimes in New York, Josh, a “Fundamentalist Christian” decided to do a response video on anti-gay violence and address gay and lesbian youth who are conflicted by the “ignorance” of other Christians. As someone who knows first hand how painful that experience can be I’m glad Josh decided to speak out. By the way his channel is called Question What You Believe. Amen to that!

What are you thoughts on Josh’s message? Leave your comment.

Advertisements

5 Comments Add yours

  1. Julio Perez says:

    At 4:14 “Of course I would like you to get SAVED”.

    We love you but not really… No thanks. I’m glad he felt the need to do a “positive” video, but he obviously thinks that I am still going to hell. Thank you for your positive thoughts, but …I can do without your prayers.

    And I resent him saying over and over “if you are A GAY”. I’m not a thing. I’m a human being.

  2. adelat84 says:

    I will try to be as brief as I can but expose all that I have to say.
    1. I have a problem when Josh addresses he is a Fundamentalist Christian because if he takes that stance his opinions are contradictory to his affirmation as a Fundamentalist Christian. You see, a fundamentalist Christian will never say Christians should just let gays be gays on the claim that’s who they want to be so do not shove the bible down their brain, in order to change their perception of who they are. In theory, a fundamentalist Christian is a conservative who believes the bible is inspired by God, and if such than you must certainly spread the Gospel, preach repentance, and show people the light.
    Showing people the light is not letting someone being in darkness (that darkness will be letting gays be gays because according to Christianity homosexual identification is an abomination).
    According to the bible, God loves the sinner but not the sin. According to the bible being gay is a sin because God intended men to mate with a woman.
    Therefore, Josh claiming to be a Fundamentalist Christian throws me off because a true Christian would not take the stance he is taking, nevertheless being a fundamentalist. We have seen in the U.S Fundamentalist speak against same sex marriage, equal rights for gays. Instead, he must be a sympathizer….
    2. The title of his video is “anti-gay violence” but he also points out other things.
    But first things first, if people claim to be Christians they are to love their neighbors, enemies, sinners, that includes GAYS, loving is not beating gays to death, because they “ought” to change their ways. Christians are not to take the power to dictate someone’s death. In that context, I agree with him, because how can someone claim to be a Christian and be involved in hate. You simply can’t. So,
    3. I agree that Christians are to love gay people, but I do not understand how can you claim that you ought to love the person, but not love their sin, if that very thing that Christians call sin (homosexuality) is who many claim they are. So, if Christianity claims that you “ought” to love the sinner not the sin, than the love is partial because you will only love certain parts of who the person is, but you will not love the person as a whole.
    4. The bible says to encourage one another in their fate, and if someone is backsliding to guide them, therefore him claiming as a Christian that Christians are to back off, and not influence government, I do not think they will be very happy. Josh is very contradictory, because if he claims that he loves gays, and that gays should not experience hate, yet he knows that being gay is wrong, which means it is a sin, than he should be preaching about repentance so gays do not go to hell, and he would want Christians to be part of government in order to not facilitate homosexual acts.
    5. ALL IN ALL I JUST HAVE A PROBLEM WHEN HE CLAIMS TO BE A FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN YET HE HAS A NOTION OF TOLERANCE TOWARDS GAYS because he partially accepts them. So, I do not believe he is a true fundamentalist.
    6. Putting mechanics aside—not thinking about his claim to be a fundamentalist –
    7. Someone being gay does not harm me or others physically, mentally, or spiritually. It’s just an identification, gays are people who experience the same core feelings, wants, desires, and perhaps they do not experience those emotions/feelings/desires/ through the same exact venues, but it’s not harming anyone. If people who identify as gay want to express their love with another companion of their same sex—let them be, PERIOD.
    How will Christians feel if the country was governed by all gays, and gays did not believe in Christianity and gays banned Christianity? Being gay is not an act of causing pain as in end in itself; it’s just a personal preference.

    In conclusion: Josh claiming to be a fundamentalist Christian, yet saying Christians should stay away from government is wrong—because a true Christian would not think that way, according to the Christian doctrine. (I form this opinion not based on technicality, not because I agree with Christianity, but because I know that according to Christianity, one must not be tolerant of gays) so, on that context, he is wrong for saying that.
    Now, if he did not claim to be a Christian, I think it is awesome that he does not accept hate crimes.
    I would like for Christianity not to torture gays by asserting they will be going to hell if they do not deviate from those inclinations….

    I hope you get what I am saying—it seems to me that he is having trouble with his faith, yet he wants to hold on to it, but is scared, and that is why he still holds on to the claim that he sees gay as wrong because he is “a Christian” almost as if to legitimize his claim, because by all his other statements is like he is being a trader to his alleged beliefs.

  3. adelat84 says:

    I wanted to clarify something because my lazzy self did not proof-read before posting—

    What I meant by “Now, if he did not claim to be a Christian, I think it is awesome that he does not accept hate crimes.”

    is that I was having trouble grasping he is a Christian because a Fundamentalist christian which is a hard cord conservative will not be as supportive as he claims to be to the best of his ability to do so—BUT I DO NOT SUPPORT HATE CRIME AT ALL 🙂

  4. John says:

    The word fundamental comes from the word foundation. Fundamental means believing in that which is most important, the foundation upon which the rest of the belief system is built. Jesus was once asked what is the most important commandment. When asked by the Pharasiees what was the greatest commandment, Jesus replied, ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

    And in 1 Corinthians 13:13, “Three things will last forever—faith, hope, and love—and the greatest of these is love.”

    If you are truly a fundamentalist, you have to start with love. The rest is window dressing.

    Enough said.

  5. Jeffery Cook says:

    The ethical, logistical, sociological and financial barriers to trying to end AIDS with pills and awareness campaigns are proving too great. The price tag also poses the question: Even if we could raise the tens of trillions of dollars, w………hy would we spend that much money on treating HIV when it could take far less to find a cure?

    Surprisingly, given the lack of adequate funding, AIDS cure research has produced some really exciting breakthroughs. Kevin Frost, the CEO of the Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR), said, “The research around a cure has been going very well. It’s one of the great, untold stories of AIDS today. Much of [AIDS cure] research is headed in a very positive direction, and there’s genuine enthusiasm in the scientific community about the possibilities of how we get there.

    Optimism for a cure within the scientific community is at an all-time high. The challenge is getting the myriad possible options beyond a laboratory setting—and into human trials. In today’s medical research there is an gap (known as “the valley of death”) between exciting new scientific discoveries and the dollars, leadership and advocacy needed to turn those ideas into medicine we can use.

    We have spent relatively precious little money and effort on cure research. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) reports that it has spent $45 billion on all forms of AIDS research in the past 28 years. (In 2009 alone, the United States spent $20 billion on AIDS prevention and treatment for people stateside and abroad.) According to a report released recently by The AIDS Policy Project (APP), the NIH spent a mere 3 percent of overall AIDS spending (or $41 million of $1.5 billion) on AIDS cure research in 2009. The APP is calling the NIH to increase AIDS cure research funding five-fold—to $240 million—in 2011 and to $600 million a year within five years. Currently, the NIH spends nine times as much looking for a vaccine as it does looking for a cure. But the APP does not suggest the NIH “borrow from Paul to pay Peter” but rather that it ups the ante across the board; the APP suggests Congress should increase NIH funding (as President Obama promised during his campaign) by 20 percent, effective next year.

    For too long, too many people have given up on the cure. The APP’s report claims that few outside the research community are aware of what’s going on with AIDS cure research, “not members of the general public, nor most health reporters. Nor the United States Congress, which decides how much to fund the National Institutes of Health. Not even most AIDS activists, who assume the cure is decades out of reach. And, most importantly, not people with AIDS themselves, millions of whose lives are at stake.”

    Why should we cure AIDS? To fund solutions that will save the most lives. HIV/AIDS is the No. 1 cause of disease and death among woman and girls ages 15 to 44 worldwide. Nothing kills more women in the prime of their lives. And given that nearly 50 percent of the 33.4 million people estimated to be living with HIV on the planet are men, the death rate for men isn’t far behind. By striking down millions in their prime, AIDS can greatly reduce nations’ gross national products.

    There are those who argue that a cure isn’t needed because treatment has rendered HIV infection a manageable, chronic condition. For many reasons, lifelong treatment is far from the optimal solution for dealing with HIV. It’s prohibitively expensive. The estimated lifetime cost of ARV medications can top more than $600,000 per person in the United States, according to a November 2006 study conducted by Cornell University researchers.

    Ideally, all people living with HIV should be aware of their status, be educated about treatment options and be given access to care should they choose to take it. But, the drugs aren’t the ultimate answer for those of us lucky to get our hands on them. And they’re certainly not the answer for the 5.5 million people who need drugs right now to stay alive and can’t get them.

    All roads, it seems, lead back to the necessity for a cure.

    To fast track the cure, we’ve got to get more people talking about it.

    Mainstream media barely covered the recent case of a man who has possibly been cured of HIV (albeit through impractical means). The story of an HIV-positive American, living in Berlin, who received a bone marrow transplant to cure his leukemia. The procedure, performed by Gero Hütter, MD, a German hemotologist at Berlin’s Charité Medical University, had a twist: The doctor re-introduced stem cells taken from a person with a certain genetic mutation that renders them (and theoretically the person to whom their cells are given) incapable of producing CCR5 receptors. Because HIV needs CCR5 to connect to and infect CD4 cells, not having it essentially renders a person immune to HIV.

    The case of the Berlin patient also illuminates another key point: It’s not up to the NIH alone to find the cure for AIDS. And money does not necessarily force scientific discovery, and throwing cash against research projects with little promise is a waste. The high-stakes and high-cost responsibility should be spread between mighty giants like the NIH and other outfits like amfAR (of which Hofmann is a board member), ADARC, AVAC, IAVI, France’s Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le Sida, the Canadian HIV Trials Network and independent academic centers throughout the world. It will take the combined efforts and resources of multiple governments and a lot of public-private partnerships. Private funding of independent biotech companies has always been a critical link in the solution to any disease. In a recession-struck world, high-risk funding dries up quickly whether that’s on the part of individuals, venture capital firms or even the pharmaceutical companies themselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s