If Michael Glatze has finally found peace with himself, and truly believes he is now living the way he should, then more power to him.

I say this with all honesty about him -- and about all the marchers in San Francisco's Gay Pride parade, to which we took our three children last week.
L. | Homepage | 07.04.07 - 12:56 am | #

A good and interesting article, and I hate to nitpick, but there are major problems when he says, "God gave us truth for a reason. . . . It exists so we could be ourselves."

Such statements might lead to misunderstanding about the nature of truth and of God, at least when they are made in the philosophical sense (as Glatze has done). In that sense, (1) God did not "give" us truth and (2) truth does not "exist" so that we "can be ourselves."

To show why this is, and to prevent any such misunderstanding, let us consider the converse of the idea of God giving us truth -- would it be possible for God to give us error? Obviously not. Clearly, it would not be possible for God to give us error for the very simple reason that God is incapable of error. Indeed, God is Truth itself; He is not the source or cause of error, which entered into the world only by and through Satan and us humans. Also, truth is not some creation or tangible thing that is separate and apart from God and thus capable of being "given"; truth and God are inseparable. (Of course, I have the Judeo-Christian God in mind here. As was noted in the Regensburg Lecture, Allah is so all-powerful and unlimited that he is not necessarily bound by reason.)

So, since it is not possible for God to have given us error -- we "gave" it to ourselves -- God therefore "gave" us truth for no other reason than because He could not give us anything else but truth. God is the "I am," He is Truth in all its fullness, and truth cannot be contrary to itself and still be truth. God did not "give" us truth -- truth exists, and we have that truth because God exists, and because He transcends all, not because it was "given" to us in that philosophical sense.

Moreover, truth does not "exist" so that we "can be ourselves," rather, truth exists because God is Himself, which is Truth. And without truth, there is nothing to exist. Error has no existence in and of itself. And truth would exist even if humans were never created (and did exist before they were created).

The only sense in which it could be said that truth has been "given" to us, and that it exists so we "can be ourselves," is in the sense of God giving Himself to us, which goes beyond the philosophical into the Christological. That is, Jesus, who is "the truth, the way, and the life," has given Himself to us, literally -- bodily and spiritually -- and in the Truth that is Him we are set free to be our true selves, as we were meant to be. But, again, the Truth that is Jesus, the Logos, has existed since before the beginning of time and such Truth would exist even if the Incarnation had not been given to us.
Bender | Homepage | 07.04.07 - 2:19 am | #

Michael Glatze is finally free. Thanks to the support of David Kupelian and religious leader Roy Masters. Others who wish to seek the change that MIchael discovered and go to FHU.com and see the truth that is also published in its co-organization WorldNetDaily. Thanks to publisher Joseph Farah also. Truly God is wonderful!
Keith | 07.04.07 - 9:03 am | #

As one who has felt the extraordinary freeing from a different kind of slavery than Mr. Glatz by God's grace, we shouldn't quibble too much with his new freedom and understanding of it. It is, after all, a matter of "faith seeking understanding," which some of us are further along than others.

The major point is that he is giving credit to Whom credit is due, IMO.
Athos | Homepage | 07.04.07 - 9:14 am | #

Here's to everyone finding their own peace and fulfilment, whatever the path may be.
Terezia | 07.04.07 - 9:59 am | #

I imagine that his perspective has got to make people with any kind of gay agenda a little nervous. If he's going to be brutally honest about being something that certain members of the homosexual community claim is impossible, he's going to be a walking sign of contradiction, and a bit of a flame-war is likely to ensue.

The whole "ex-gay" phenomenon is widely regarded in the "gay-rights" community as something to be mocked.

I think it's important to support people who are courageous and who will not be silenced by the supremely ironic censorship that procedeth from the "gay community".

Let's give this guy as much help as we can, and avoid nit-picking, okay?

Warren
warren | Homepage | 07.04.07 - 11:39 am | #

I don't see any "nit-picking" Warren -- unless you mean Bender's point (perhaps it would have been more accurate for Glatze to have said, "God reveals to us the truth," instead of "God gives us the truth"). I also fail to see how Glatze's point of view might make "people with any kind of gay agenda a little nervous," anymore than Dawn's point of view about being reborn into the grace of chastity makes people (like me) with a very different "sexual agenda" nervous. Glatze speaks to a particular kind of gay person -- one who truly believes his/her desires are sinful. Of course, not all do (and some would argue that not all should), but for those that feel this way, Glatze is probably an inspiration.
L. | Homepage | 07.04.07 - 12:17 pm | #

Actually, God gives us the truth. The truth exists without us, but it is not ours. And because of original sin, we can not discover it on our own. We must be given it.
Mary | 07.04.07 - 12:31 pm | #

Also, the story of Charlene Cothran, is quite amazing as well.
http://themusicalmonk.blogspot.c...og- post_25.html
Michael | Homepage | 07.04.07 - 1:33 pm | #

"I also fail to see how Glatze's point of view might make "people with any kind of gay agenda a little nervous,""

It kind of blows the wind out of the sails of their ideology that homosexual preference is as immutable as gender. It also takes a huge bite out of the victim complex the gay gestapo reinforces upon the homosexual community.

Quite frankly, it is about politics.
Crystal Lake | 07.04.07 - 7:01 pm | #

I don't know about that, Crystal Lake -- I think for some people, it IS as immutable as heterosexuality, but for others, it clearly isn't. I went to a women's college with a significant and vocal lesbian presence, and there quite a few "LUG's" = "lesbians until graduation." I have no doubt that some people, like Glatze, consciously choose to suppress their natural urges and through sheer willpower and effort (and faith and prayer) are able to do so. Again, Glatze sounds as if he made the right choice for himself. Others, however, never had immutable urges in the first place -- they developed them simply because their own gender was there and was willing to snuggle on those cold Massachusetts nights when there weren't any boys around. Most of these women graduated, got married and had kids. I daresay one would not find their lives to be examples of "conversion stories." So homo/heterosexuality is immutable -- except when it isn't.

And sure, EVERYTHING is political, somewhere!
L. | Homepage | 07.04.07 - 8:37 pm | #

"immutable--except when it isn't" and then my head exploded.
Ben | 07.05.07 - 6:31 am | #

Sorry, Ben -- I hope it didn't make a mess all over the wall. I didn't mean to trigger your spontaneous combustion -- that was just my "intrinsic disorder" coming through! :)
L. | Homepage | 07.05.07 - 11:37 am | #

Homosexuality may be innate in the sense that some men naturally are *initially* attracted to men more than to women. However, the real abnormality is not the attraction to men, it is the lack of attraction to women. It is easier for a gay man to learn to like women too, than to stop finding men attractive; fortunately, the easier task is the essential one, because ultimately, in a marriage, one must learn to resist the sexual temptations of "all others" than one's spouse, whichever gender the "others" are.
Joseph | 07.06.07 - 3:36 pm | #

However, the real abnormality is not the attraction to men, it is the lack of attraction to women.

Now it's my turn for my head to explode, after pondering that one! But I do understand -- and agree with -- everything after the semicolon.
L. | Homepage | 07.06.07 - 6:46 pm | #

I found it rather puzzling. The article itself was actually quite good. But there was nothing in it about him turning Straight, as the headline put it. Just about learning to fight temptation and strive for holiness.

So did he really discover heterosexual desires and just forgot to mention it? Or is the headline mismatched to the article completely?
Eileen R | 07.06.07 - 11:59 pm | #

"I say this with all honesty about him -- and about all the marchers in San Francisco's Gay Pride parade, to which we took our three children last week."

Moral relativism written all over it. But then again, would the gay movement be sustained without that particular moral configuration?
JonathanR. | 07.08.07 - 12:27 pm | #

Jonathan, as I said on another blog about this very subject, we took them to the parade because we are teaching them that people who identify as homosexuals, whether sexually active, chastely loving in Josephite relationships, or even remain celibate as the Church tells them to do, should be able to live in our society without fear of violence and discrimination. Less than a hundred years ago, it was illegal in San Francisco for an Asian man to marry a white woman -- had we lived in a different time, we would not have been able to live openly as a family, because many people considered an interracial relationship to be abomination. Is that "moral relativism" to you? To us, it's clear and consistent.
L. | Homepage | 07.08.07 - 6:01 pm | #

Hear! Hear! Since I don't have children myself, L., I love reading about how you're raising your kids so they will have lots of diverse experiences to draw on and think about to make sense of life.

JonathanR., there may be such a thing as a "gay movement" now, but homosexuality is certainly nothing new. And the "gay movement" is something that is mainly trying to establish rights (for people who pay their taxes, just like you and me) to not have to face violence and discrimination for something that really does not much affect any other people in a secular sense.

Personally, I think the best thing that anyone could hope for in order to practice their beliefs is to have the strongest-possible secular government which grants rights to ALL to practice their personal beliefs.

Anyone have any great success stories about theocracies to share?
Terezia | 07.08.07 - 9:03 pm | #

Terezia:

No.

Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.
Gilbert K. Chesterton
John J. Simmins | 07.09.07 - 12:07 pm | #

I'm guessing that quote's a bit out of context for my question, but it's a really good one anyway. I do need to give Chesterton's other works a try. I always loved his writing in the Father Brown books, so that's a start.
Terezia | 07.09.07 - 8:49 pm | #